‘Observer’ writer loses action

Press, Volume CXII, Issue 33052, 20 October 1972, Page 13

‘Observer’ writer loses action

(N.Z. Press Assn.—Copyright)

LONDON, October 19. A British political columnist, Nora Beloff, of the “Observer,” has lost her breach-of-copy-right action against the satirical magazine, “Private Eye,” brought because of its publication of a confidential memorandum which she wTote to her editor, and she has been ordered to pay costs, unofficially estimated at £lO,OOO.

Miss Beloff claimed damages and injunctions against the magazine’s publishers, and its printer. The memorandum contained information given to her confidentially by Mr William Whitelaw concerning Mr Reginald Maudling’s suitability as a possible future Prime Minister. Mr Whitelaw is Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, and Mr Maudling was Home Secretary before resigning over the Poulson bankruptcy scandal. “Private Eye,” which published the memorandum under the heading “The Ballsoff Memorandum,” submitted that its publication was fair dealing within the copyright laws, and was in the public interest. Reserved judgment was

given yesterday, the eightday case having been heard in July. The judge said that Paul Foot, the “Private Eye” journalist who wrote the “Ballsoff Memorandum” article, had for some time been concerned with Mr Maudling’s business relationship with Mr W. Hoffman, of whose Real Estate Company of America. Mr Maudling was president for a short time. "Mr Hoffman, I understand, was sentenced to two I years imprisonment, and was fined £4OO in America on fraud charges," said the judge. In February, 1971, the “Observer” published a slashing attack on “Private Eye.” accusing the magazine, in effect, of smearing Mr Maudding, and of pure fabrication. 1 In March, 1971, Mr Foot replied with his article, incorporating Miss Beloff’s memorandum. The judge said that the case was not concerned with the conduct of "Private Eye” in general, but only with the alleged breach of copyright. He held that, as Miss Beloff was an employee of the “Observer,” and not an independent contractor, the copyright of her memorandum belonged to the newspaper, and not to her. Its editor, Mr David Astor, had no authority to assign the copyright to Miss Beloff. and a document by which he purported to do so was not valid.