Mr Jorgensen Cross-examined In Suit Claiming Damages

Press, Volume CVIII, Issue 31727, 10 July 1968, Page 26

Mr Jorgensen Cross-examined In Suit Claiming Damages

(New Zealand Press Association) AUCKLAND, July 9. Ronald John Jorgensen sat sketching his surroundings in the Supreme Court, Auckland, today as legal argument was put to Mr Justice Hardie Boys in his action for damages of $2OOO against News Media (Auckland), Ltd.

Mr Jorgensen, aged 35, who is serving a life sentence after being convicted with John Frederick Gillies in 1964 of murdering Kevin James Speight at Bassett Road, Remuera, alleges that words published in the “Sunday News” on July 9, 1967, injured his reputation and brought him into odium and contempt.

Mr Jorgensen, represented by Mr P. A. Williams and Mr K. Ryan, says he denies and has always denied he is in any way responsible for the killing of Speight or Walker.

News Media (Auckland), Ltd, represented by Mr J. H. Dunn and Mr C. R. Pidgeon. admits publishing the words as part of an article. It denies injuring Jorgensen’s reputation. In cross-examination by Mr Dunn, Mr Jorgensen said many people believed in his innocence. Mr Dunn: Are you suggesting the publication of this article caused one of them to change his mind?—Yes. I know of one person and I have never seen him again and several others I cannot name.

He said several people had ceased to write to him and it was bis opinion it was because of the article.

“That article says 1 mach-ine-gunned down Walker and that’s something I was never charged with. The article puts me like a machine-gun man, an Al Capone, it makes me look like a murderer, which I am not," he said. Mr Dunn suggested to Mr Jorgensen that his guilt was discussed In a long trial and that if the jury’s verdict was one of guilt then this article could' hot have done any damage. “This article has done plenty of damage to my reputation. I have a mother and father, sister and cousins,” he replied. Not Admissible Mr Williams called the editor of the “Sunday News.” David Frederick Barrett. His Honour ruled the copies of the newspapers he had were inadmissible. “Unless you can show better evidence than that I shall have to decide whether this trial can go on," his Honour said.

At this stage the foreman of the jury stood up and asked if he could comment. His Honour said he thought it better if he did not. Mr Williams: I am trying to establish the paper was crusading for Jorgensen. His Honour: Nothing you have produced is germane to showing a crusade. Mr Williams: What about the copy you have on the front page? His Honour: Yes—quoting Jorgensen as being innocent. Mr Williams: No, that is the headline. His Honour: That is rubbish. I am not prepared to receive as evidence what Mr Jorgensen, Mr Williams or an anonymous correspondent has said. He directed that all the copies of the.“ Sunday News” should be struck from the record. Author’s View Maurice Shadbolt, an author, said, he thought Mr

Jorgensen had quite a widespread reputation amongst right thinking people of being a victim of injustice. His Honour intervened to say it was not a question of reputation relating to a particular event but reputation generally. Mr Shadbolt said Mr Jorgensen had a reputation, on the strength of work he had done and as shown in his painting, as a man of some intelligence and sensitivity and a man of resilience. His Honour: “No. If somebody was asked what did they think of you, would you be pleased with them saying you are a good gardener?” Mr Shadbolt said Mr Jorgensen had a reputation for innocence.

Eric Paul McCormick, a historian, was asked by Mr Williams what he thought Mr Jorgensen’s reputation was amongst right thinking people. “Amongst those I know his reputation is that of a wrongfully convicted man,” he said. His Honour: “We don’t want his reputation in relation to a particular matter but generally.”

Witness: “I would think, generally speaking, his reputation is a good one.”

Mr Dunn, addressing the jury, reminded its members that they were hearing a trial for defamation and not a retrial for Mr Jorgensen's guilt. “I submit that this article was not in any sense an article which was critical of Jorgensen. There is no indication that anybody wanted to criticise him,” he said. He said it was an article which seemed to praise him for the artistic work he had done. “The whole tenor of this article is one of praise. Whatever was said about Jorgensen was not said critically but

said in the cause of introducing the subject of pastimes and occupations of prisoners,” he said. He said there was no allegation in the “Sunday News” that Mr Jorgensen shot both men or was guilty for the murder of both of them. Commenting on damages, he said: “The only amount you should consider is the sum of one cent, which would be more than enough to compensate Jorgensen for any injury he has suffered. Even two cents would be too much.” The case will continue tomorrow.