Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

Appeal Court Hearing

(N.Z. Press Association)

WELLINGTON, May 12.

The Court of Appeal today began hearing a case on a question of law removed into the Court from the Auckland Supreme Court and arising from a ruling on admissibility of evidence in an action for defamation brought by Ronald John Jorgensen, of Auckland, an inmate of Mount Eden Prison. ’■ His action was brought against News Media (Auckland), Ltd, the publishers of the northern edition of the Sunday News.

In the course of the

Supreme Court proceedings the trial judge, Mr Justice Hardie Boys, ruled that evidence of Mr Jorgensen’s previous conviction on March 4, 1964, for the murder of Kevin James Speight was not admissible evidence in the defamation action as conclusive proof of Mr Jorgensen’s guilt in respect of the alleged murder.

The defamation proceedings arose out of an article in the northern edition of the Sunday News of July 9, 1967. Mr Jorgensen issued proceedings alleging that the publication of the words complained of was false and malicious and he claimed $2OOO damages. At the hearing of the action in the Supreme Court in July, 1968, the jury was unable to reach a verdict. It appeared that the plaintiff,

had moved for a new trial and the defendant moved to have the legal question moved into the Court of Appeal for a decision.

In the Court of Appeal, Mr P. A. Williams appeared for Mr Jorgensen. News Media (Auckland), Ltd, was represented by Mr T. G. Goddard, with him Mr C. R. Pidgeon. The Court comprised Mr Justice North, Mr Justice Turner and Mr Justice McCarthy. Mr Goddard submitted in his opening address that there were three questions before the Court, namely whether the conviction was admissible evidence of guilt, secondly whether it was conclusive of the guilt, and thirdly whether proof by the defendant of the conviction shifted the onus of proof on to the plaintiff.

The case is proceeding.

This article text was automatically generated and may include errors. View the full page to see article in its original form.
Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/CHP19690513.2.186

Bibliographic details

Press, Volume CIX, Issue 31986, 13 May 1969, Page 32

Word Count
323

Appeal Court Hearing Press, Volume CIX, Issue 31986, 13 May 1969, Page 32

Appeal Court Hearing Press, Volume CIX, Issue 31986, 13 May 1969, Page 32