Prisoner awarded $3000 damages

Press, Volume CXIII, Issue 33370, 31 October 1973, Page 1

Prisoner awarded $3000 damages

(New Zealand Press Association/ AUCKLAND, October 30. After being awarded $3OOO damages today in a libel action against New Zealand Newspapers, Ltd, Ronald John Jorgensen,

a 41-year-old prison inmate, said the decision had given him faith in the courts.

The plaintiff, who is serving a life sentence for murder, said he was satisfied with today’s decision in the Supreme Court at Auckland. He had sought $lO,OOO damages from the company, which he said libelled him in an article printed and published by it in the “8 O’clock” Saturday edition of the “Auckland Star” on April 29, 1972. Counsel for the company, Mr R. P. Towle, said this evening that consideration would be given to an appeal against the jury’s decision. Mr Justice Perry entered judgment in favour of the

plaintiff and granted him costs of the two-day hearing. “FALSE AND MALICIOUS” After considering the case for 30 minutes, the jury of nine men and three women said it found in favour of the plaintiff, and assessed damages at $3OOO. Mr P. A. Williams and Mr K. Ryan appeared for Mr Jorgensen and Mr L. W. Brown, Q.C., with him Mr Towle, for the defendant. In his claim, Mr Jorgensen alleged that words in the article, headed “The Stench of Prison, part IV of the life and bad times of Mihaly Bede,” were false and malicious. He said that the words complained of were under-

stood to mean that he was hated by other prison inmates, received unfair favouritism, and informed on fellow inmates. He said the article lowered him in the estimation of society. The statement of defence denied that the article was false and malicious, and • said that the words com- ■ plained of were true. It said that if the words ■ did defame the plaintiff, then it relied in mitigation of i damages on' the fact that he . had been convicted in i March, 1964, of murder. FORMER CHAPLAIN Earlier today, the final I witness called for the plaintiff, Monsignor Leo Vincent Downey, said that he was formerly a prison chaplain and had visited Mr Jorgensen. He said that on one occasion Mr Jorgensen had told him about some acid which had been hidden in the prison, for use by inmates in an attack on a warder. Through him, the acid was removed. Witness said that Mr Jorgensen had tried to build a reputation in a positive way, and was sensitive to I accusations. The defence brought no evidence.