Review of libel law long overdue, says Sir John Marshall

Press, Volume CXIV, Issue 33694, 18 November 1974, Page 2

Review of libel law long overdue, says Sir John Marshall

GV.Z. Press Association) WELLINGTON, November 17. A review of the law of libel is long overdue,; says a former Prime Minister, Sir John Mar-h shall. Sir John, a lawyer and former Attorney-General, believes that a retraction, ' ■correction or apology should , carry more weight than at I ; present in cases of unintentional libel. In most cases this should; be enough to remove the; justification for damages r when there was no malic-i ious element, he said. Sir John was interviewed: after the suggestion by the' Minister of Justice (Dr Fin-1: lay) last week that there) was “evidence of a need”), for a review of the laws of libel and defamation. i

Sir John emphasised that) he was giving his personal' i views. “EXCESS” DAMAGES It was important that! :people who had had their: ) reputation or character; defamed should have: (redress, he said. “But I think the damages that have been awarded by juries and the damages paid out by the news media in cases that I’ve heard of are often considerably in excess of any real damages suffered by the person defamed.” I In the course of his long) public life, statements had: been made about him which i could have given an oppor-j itunity to claim damages on; I the grounds of defamation. “I have never taken such! : proceedings and I don’t) believe I have suffered per-) imanent damage as a result! I — in political life in particular. “I think it is desirable for; i public men to be prepared

Ito take criticism, even i* it is may be unjust or prejudicial il or excessive.” : DISTINCTION 1 ; Sir John said that a dis- ( itinction should be drawn be- ’ I tween unintentional libel and ‘ statements which were delib- ‘ erately made with the in- s tention of doing as much : harm as possible to the per- ! son concerned. J ’ A case could well be made for substantial damages for deliberate defamation. 't “The publication of a re-ii : traction of the statement, orje la correction, or a full apology, should be given more ' 'weight than it is at present i land should in most cases bed sufficient to remove the t : justification for damages —t lat least where there is no I malicious element,” he said. I “Where defamatory state-if ments are published which « undermine the good charac-p ter of a person or cause's great distress to him and his f family, or where it can be t <

i shown that some damage ■ has been done to a person’s standing in the community, then there is a case for ess and quite often the payment of damages is the appropriate form of making amends.” Quite often, such circumstances were not an element: in claims for defamation, Sir! John said. N.Z.B.C. PAYMENT He said he certainly did; not think this was the case: in the recent N.Z.B.C. payout. “The present law under which individuals and the news media may be involved in heavy damages results in an over-cautious attitude on the behalf of the press in particular. “This places a considerable restraint on the free expression of opinion which, in a country which still preserves the concept of freedom of speech, is an undesirable restraint,

‘For these reasons the ! law needs to be thoroughly ! reviewed.” JURY’S ROLE On' the suggestion of removing libel claims from jury hearings, Sir John said! he would be reluctant to see this, but he would like. to j ■ see more realistic rules on: the amount of damages that'; could be awarded. “Defamation is essentially | (concerned with people’s rep-i utations and juries are per-i haps the most suitable judge; of fact when it comes to the (status of their fellow citi-i ■zens. I “They have not been soi good at fixing a monetary: (value on personal reputaI tions. This is a difficult question and I think it is; important to find a-solution; to this aspect of the prob- i lem if juries are & continue! to be the juages of the facts’ of the case,” . 1