Mr Jorgensen’s Claim May Be Sent To Appeal Court

Press, Volume CVIII, Issue 31728, 11 July 1968, Page 28

Mr Jorgensen’s Claim May Be Sent To Appeal Court

(New Zealand Press Association) / , AUCKLAND, July 10. The trial in the Supreme Court at Auckland in which Ronald John Jorgensen is claiming $2OOO for alleged libel from News Media (Auckland), Ltd, ended today with the jury unable to return a verdict.

The jury told Mr Justice Hardie Boys' almost four and a half hours after retiring that it thought it would be almost impossible to reach a verdict. Mr Jorgensen Is at present serving a sentence of life imprisonment in Auckland Prison after his conviction in 1964 on a charge of murdering Kevin James Speight. After two hours and 10 minutes the jury returned to indicate that it would not reach a unanimous verdict His Honour said he would accept a majority verdict if at least nine jurors could agree. His Honour said that his view was that before the matter came for trial again the determination of the Court of iAppeal should be obtained. “My fear is that this could continue to happen. The jury, told it can take into account

a conviction for murder at one level of the case and have to ignore it at another, is set such a mental exercise that I am sure it is in the road of the determination of the issue.”

Mr Jorgensen’s action against a newspaper for $2OOO damages was perhaps intended only to cast doubt on the correctness of his conviction for murder, said Mr J. H. Dunn, counsel for News Media (Auckland), Ltd. In his closing address, Mr Dunn said the claim seemed devoid of merit It was difficult to understand why it was instituted. There seemed to be a lack of any suggestion that the publication had injured Mr Jorgensen’s reputation. “Possibly it is an action for defamation in name only,” Mr Dunn told the jury. “Perhaps it is hoped this claim may result in a verdict which will confuse the legal position and cast doubt of some sort on the correctness of Mr Jorgensen’s conviction. “That is an issue which does not arise. The defence has expressly abstained from raising it. “We don’t think it is necessary, and even if it was necessary we would have doubt about doing it because we don’t want to adopt any course which could bring the administration of justice into disrepute.” No ordinary man reading the newspaper would think it was making a charge against Mr Jorgensen. Any ordinary intelligent reader would think the words were just an explanation of why Mr Jorgensen was in Auckland Prison. “We have heard a story which, in my submission, does nothing to suggest Mr Jorgensen was wrongly convicted,” he said. “We have heard nothing new, except for the first time in the history of this litigation Mr Jorgensen has gone into the witness box and given some evidence.” Mr K. Ryan, in his closing address for Mr Jorgensen, said Mr Jorgensen had done his best to call as witnesses

a class of people he believed to be right thinking. There had been no evidence that Mr Jorgensen had a bad reputation, except that of one police officer who had been involved in the murder trial and could very easily be said to be biased. Mr Jorgensen believed that some right-thinking people in the community thought him innocent, and because of that his reputation was a good one. That was what had been taken from him. If the defendant firm was allowed to go without paying compensatory damages, any person in prison could be accused of a crime he had always denied and could do nothing about it, Mr Ryan submitted. That was why this case was important. His Honour, in his summing up, said he ruled that Mr Jorgensen’s conviction for the murder of Speight was not admissible as proof that he committed the murder. The conviction was admissible in the proceedings, only on the score of damages. He said the jury must first

decide whether the “Sunday News” had independently alleged that Mr- Jorgensen was a principal or a party to the murder. If the answer was yes, it must decide if the words were defamatory. He ruled that they were capable of defamatory meaning. If the jury went on to consider the truth of the words it could not take into account the conviction. If the words were found to be untrue, damages had to be assessed. His Honour said the jury must decide what Mr Jorgensen’s reputation was among right-thinking members of the community before the article appeared, and how his reputation had been affected. It was entitled to take into account the newspaper’s apology. It seemed to him that the jury had to consider predominantly whether Mr Jorgensen's reputation had been taken away by what was in the newspaper, or whether it had already been taken away by his conviction for murder.