Judge reserves decision on libel claim

Press, Volume CXII, Issue 32967, 13 July 1972, Page 11

Judge reserves decision on libel claim

Decision was reserved by Mr Justice Wilson in the Supreme Court yesterday on a claim for general damages of $7500 by Hamish Henry Cordy Keith, of Auckland, a writer and broadcaster, for alleged defamation by the Christchurch Press Company, Ltd. The hearing took three days.

The plaintiff gave evidence on his own behalf and the defence called three witnesses.

Messrs M. E. Casey and J. G. Miles, of Auckland, appeared for the plaintiff and Messrs J. G. Leggat and J. E. Ryan for the defendant company, which denied liability. Arthur Rolleston Cant, editor of “The Press”, continuing his evidence, said that Mr Keith attacked the political editorial opinions which

“The Press” was entitled to express and which should not be questioned without at least the production of some good reason to show that they were wrong, untenable, or unreasonable opinions. There was not one scrap of factual matter in the criticism.

There was nothing in the telecast to suggest that Mr Keith had any political view of his own or could be expected to have. In Auckland he would be known to have been connected with the Labour Party, but the witness doubted whether many viewers in other parts of the country would know that. Fact and opinion “I think that Mr Keith showed quite clearly in the telecast that he did not appreciate the distinction between fact and opinion,” Mr Cant said. Mr Keith contrasted critically the space allocated to advertising supplements and that given to electoral coverage. The witness said he knew of no instance where the preparation and publication of a supplement were allowed to interfere with the space allocated to ordinary

[news, but he would hesitate to say that it had never occurred.

The leading article the subject of the action was a statement of facts and opinions honestly stated. Then and now, the article represented the witness’s view and the fair expression of it. He did not believe that Mr Keith showed much competence as a commentator, and on reflection the witness adhered to that view. Mr Keith had displayed ignorance of journalistic principles and ethics in the programme.

The term “bias” was not used in the article. It did state that Mr Keith had allowed his own political sympathies to overrule him or, to be more specific, to distract him from the job he was paid to do. Prejudice charge Mr Cant said that the article accused Mr Keith of prejudice to the extent that Mr Keith allowed himself to be swayed by his own political views. The sentence in the article: “Perhaps he allowed his own political sympathies —he was an unsuccessful Labour Party candidate at the last General Election—to distract him from the job he was paid to do,” suggested to the ordinary reader that Mr Keith allowed' his own sympathies to obtrude into his discussion of “The Press” editorial. He himself was guilty of the fault he was imputing to “The Press.”

“The Press” was using its leader columns for an expression of opinion, a recognised practice, but Mr Keith was doing what was purported to be an objective comment. Mr Keith’s political views would not be known to a great number of the viewers, said Mr Cant.

“My belief is that no journalist fulfilling this role of a commentator on newspapers would willingly let himself transgress in this way against journalistic principles. He would certainly not do this consciously, least of all for the purposes of deceit. That never entered my head,” said Mr Cant. The article had never attacked Mr Keith’s integrity in the personal sense. It had nothing whatever to do with him except for his performance on “Column Comment.” No part of the article criticised him as a person distinct from his performance as a commentator, Mr Cant said. Cross-examination To Mr Casey Mr Cant said that he wrote the editorial himself and he did not receive any assistance in writting it except to confirm the Tacts of the telecast by disI cussing the matter with a (leader writer and the manaiger, both of whom had seen [the telecast. He did not dis-

cuss the article with anyone after he had written it. Mr Cant said he was now aware that some time previously “The Press” printed a quite favourable review of Mr Keith’s work in “Column Comment,” but he was not aware of this at the time he wrote the article. Mr Cant said that he formed his impression of Mr Keith’s competence after seeing the programme of October 19. He had not seen any other work of Mr Keith in “Column Comment.” The witness was told of the content of the programme on October 12.

In the programme of October 12 Mr Keith reviewed papers throughout New Zealand with special reference to apathy on election issues, but he coupled it with what he apparently regarded as an excessive attention to advertising supplements by “The Press.”

Mr Casey: Wasn’t he really saying that it might have been preferable if some of the papers published in-depth studies of issues for the election? Mr Cant: That is not what he said.

You do agree that he was contrasting unfavourably the amount of space you devoted to election issues and the amount given to one advertising supplement?—The point has already been made that advertising supplements were something extra. His Honour: You thought it was an ignorant criticism. “Abysmal ignorance”

Mr Cant: I think it showed an abysmal ignorance of newspaper practice. It was not fair because “The Press” had devoted about 1500 inches of space to election issues.

Asked where Mr Keith had admonished “The Press” for leaving its readers in no doubt as to where its sympathies lay, Mr Cant said that in successive comments on extracts thrown on the screen and read by Mr Keith he had held “The Press” up to disapproval. The comments were admonishing. Mr Cant agreed that, after the editorial which was attacked by Mr Keith was printed in “The Press,” a great number of letters, many of them in a good deal stronger terms than those used by Mr Keith, were printed in the paper. “As we say in this editorial, we allow anyone to disagree with us, even to abuse us in our columns,” Mr Cant added.

Mr Casey: You feel that that right should be limited only to your columns?

Mr Cant: I don’t believe it should be used on a national network such as “Column Comment.”

Asked if he did not say in the editorial that because of the faults he had shown Mr Keith was not fit to be in charge of “Column Comment,” Mr Cant said he

would say this was so, with the qualification that this was as revealed in his performance in the particular session of the programme. Mr Cant said he felt that Mr Keith could be a useful commentator if he recognised the division between editorial opinion and the reporting of facts in the news columns.

Mr Casey: Were you not saying that because of ignorance and prejudice Mr Keith should not be employed on “Column Comment.” Mr Cant: I think that is the inescapable conclusion. Mr Cant said that the ignorance applied to journalistic matters. If Mr Keith were suspended it would be because the N.Z.B.C. was satisfied he was not suitable. The N.Z.B.C. could not afford to suspend a broadcaster merely because a newspaper thought him unsuitable. Mr Casey: Do you agree that these are grave charges to make against a man in Mr Keith’s position? Mr Cant: I think they are serious charges. I still believe that they are true. But I regard Mr Keith as a very good broadcaster in his proper field. Objection upheld Arthur Walter James, reader in journalism at the University of Canterbury, was then called by the defence, but after he had outlined his qualifications his Honour upheld Mr Casey’s objection that if Mr James was going to comment on Mr Keith’s competence his evidence would be entering the area of justification. “Much as I would like to hear Mr James’s views, I do not think I am entitled to,” his Honour said. Mr James did say that in his experience the terms used in the editorial were “the small change” of political controversy. Mr Leggat in his final address said that the case was of considerable importance on the topic of comment and the defendant company was entitled to the protection of the Court in the defences it had raised. The plaintiff’s claim should be dismissed. The plaintiff had proved no damage. Mr Casey said in his final address that the point at the heart of the case was that Mr Cant, in writing the editorial, had misconceived or misunderstood what Mr Keith had said about an editorial and had launched an attack on the basis that Mr Keith had said that “The Press” had no right to express a political view in its editorial.