SUPREME COURT Mr Gordon’s counsel opens address

Press, Volume CX, Issue 32450, 10 November 1970, Page 10

SUPREME COURT Mr Gordon’s counsel opens address

Counsel for the second defendant was part way through his opening address to the jury in the hearing of the claim for more than $30,000 for alleged libel in the Supreme Court yesterday when the Court adjourned for the day. Yesterday was the sixth day of the hearing.

James Henry Brace Winter, a former advertising promoter, now a shop assistant, is claiming general damages of $12,500 from News Media Ownership, Ltd, the first defendant, $7500 from the Minister of Transport, John Bowie Gordon, the second defendant; and special damages of $10,886. Mr Winter alleges that he was libelled in two articles published in “Truth” on October 10 and 17, 1967, which criticised a Christmas card road safety competition. Mr Justice Macarthur is presiding.

Mr J. G. Leggat and Mr G. K. Panckhurst appear for Mr Winter; Mr J. H. Dunn and Miss S. M. Moran for News Media Ownership, Ltd; and Mr J. D. Dalgety and Mr W. M. Wilson for Mr Gordon. It was announced by Mr Dalgety that the second defendant would be calling evidence. Rosalind Pauline Zottu, a journalist, continuing her evidence from Friday, said that the heading for the first article in “Truth”: “Card Gimmick Galls Gordon,” was written by the sub-editor. She wrote most of the article. She made no attempt to question the Minister about the statement and accepted it as true. She believed the facts in the article were cor rect, and the comment in the article she thought was fair comment. She had nothing to do with the second article, Mrs Zottu said. MAIN POINT To Mr Dalgety, Mrs Zottu said that her main point in going to the Transport Department was to question the use of the Minister’s letter in door-to-door sales. She remembered being told that Mr Curtis at the meeting in the hotel was asked: “What would happen if ‘Truth’ got on to us,” and he was alleged to have replied: “No-one will touch us because they won’t want to embarrass the Minister over his letter.” It was quite probable that she would have passed this on. When she went to the Transport Department she was seeking a statement as to the use or misuse of the Minister’s letter. She had told Mr Henry that the Christmas cards were already on sale on a door-to-dooY basis in Wellington at $1 a packet. Mrs Zottu said that the headline’ and the first three sentences of the article were the work of someone else. Her introduction had been disregarded. To Mr Leggat Mrs Zottu said that she had had 13 years experience as a journalist on the “Evening Post” and free-lance writing overseas. She did not speak to the Minister or his private secretary about the article. She agreed that the story could be rated as an abrasive article and that it was aimed at the organisers of the scheme but it was not her intention to kilt the scheme. The purpose of writing the article was to draw people’s attention to the fact that if they purchased the cards, 75c of the money went straight into the pocket of the saleswas to save persons being hoodwinked, she I said.

SAME ADDRESS She regarded the public as being hoodwinked when they paid 75c into the pocket of the salesmen and were asked to do that in the interests of road safety. Asked to look at a copy of the 1967 Christchurch telephone directory Mrs Zotto said that Dunford Publications and Dunford Signs were listed at the same address but she had been given a slightly different name. She had a toll call in when the story went to press. She considered that she had checked out the facts well.

After reading a letter dated October 13 from Mr Winter’s solicitors to the management of “Truth” Mrs Zottu agreed that there were several serious discrepancies between Mr Winter’s version of the facts and hers. To her knowledge “Truth” had not published the letter or any of its contents. What she objected to about the scheme was that it was being promoted as a road safety scheme with the approval of the Minister but it seemed to her that it was for the profit of the salesmen and the fact that Christmas cards were involved made them easier to sell. The saleswoman who had called at her flat selling the cards had not produced the Minister’s letter until after she had been challenged. The Minister’s letter was not the first sales pitch. The saleswoman who called at her flat implied that the scheme had the backing of the Government, and the production of the Minister’s letter had justified that belief. . , She said that part of the Minister’s statement containing a tribute to the scheme was deleted because of space consideration. She understood that it was contrary to Government policy for a Minister to support a scheme which was being run for private profit. COMPLAINTS RECEIVED John Wilson Bernard Giles, an employfee of a public relations firm in Wellington, said that in 1967 he was employed as a journalist in Auckland by News Media Ownership, Ltd. After the publication of the first article in “Truth” on October 10 a number of complaints were received from members of the public and two or three from persons who had been selling the cards and who were left with stock on their hands. •Witness said he wrote the article but not the headline which appeared in “Truth” on October 17. “When I wrote this story, I believed that everything 1 wrote was perfectly correct in its entirety and that the persons whom I interviewed gave me an exact impression,” said Mr Giles. To Mr Leggat Mr Giles said that in 1967 he had been a journalist for eight years and had been employed by “Truth” for two years. He wrote the article on his own initiative and not at the request of the Wellington office. Aucklanders had been “stung” by, being under the imoression that they were aiding a road safety campaign conducted with the approval o.f the Minister. CORRECT ASSESSMENT He agreed that when the Minister said that the contest was designed to stimu-

late interest in road safety, it was a correct assessment or appraisal. Mr Giles admitted that he had written the article without knowing that there was a leaflet aspect to the competition. Dennis Richard Leech, a journalist employed by the Consumers’ Institute in Wellington, said that he attended a meeting in the Midland Hotel on the instructions of his editor. Mr Curtis spent five to 10 minutes telling those present how much money they could make as door-to-door sales! men. There was a general preamble leading up to his revealing his “unique item.” Mr Winter was also present at the meeting but Mr Curtis took the predominant role. Every person was given a cyclostyled copy of a letter from the Minister of Transport and one from some Christchurch road safety organisation. Mr Curtis intimated that the letters were to be used as an aid in selling the cards. “I cannot recall any specific instructions, but he did say that the letter from the Minister would show the competition had the backing of a Government department,” Mr Leech said. GOVT DEPARTMENT There was some mention of “Truth” newspaper. He could not remember what it was about, but either Mr Curtis or Mr Winter had come back, with the answer that an organisation such as "Truth” would not have a go at them because they would be dragging a Government department into it To Mr Leggat, Mr Leech said that he did not think, but' could not swear to it, that the term “the Minister has been sewn up” had ever been used. He was not aware of any action being taken by the Consumers’ Institute about the sales campaign. Mr Dalgety, in opening his case for the second defendant, said that Mr Gordon had been elected the member for Clutha in 1960 and had been appointed Minister of Transport in 1966. Since assuming that office one of the main problems had been the increasing road toll and he had endeavoured to reduce or hold the figures. The Minister would say that early in the interview with Mr Curtis he had told him that he could not endorse any competition where private financial interests were .. associated with his name, said Mr Dalgety.