Privilege claim in Muldoon law suit

Press, 5 July 1977, Page 3

Privilege claim in Muldoon law suit

PA Auckland The Prime Minister (Mr Muldoon) was in the Supreme Court at Auckland yesterday to hear the case against him in a suit for $22,500.

He is cited as defendant in a defamation action brought by Thomas Oliver Newnham who, as first plaintiff, is seeking damages of 520,000.

The Citizens’ Association; for Racial Equality (C.A.R.E.) is the second! plaintiff and is seeking damages of $2500. Both plaintiffs allege that on July 19, 1976. Mr Muldoon “falsely and maliciously spoke and published” words concerning them. The hearing, before Mr Justice Speight and a jury of seven men and five women, is expected to last about 10 days. Mr F. H. Haigh and Mr R. A. Adams-Smith appear for the plaintiffs. The defendant is represented by Mr J. D. Dalgety and Mr J. Dunn.

In his statement of defence, Mr Muldoon says that he held a press conference on July 19 at which he answered questions on topics of general public interest.

A reporter asked him, “Do you think there will be any reaction in terms of public opinion against organisations like the Rugby Football Union for still continuing trips to South Africa?” Mr Muldoon replied, “I would think the reverse. I would think that the majority of New Zealanders will react very, very angrily against these groups such as H.A.R.T. and C.A.R.E. who deliberately feed lies about this country to countries all over the world. And my belief is that those people will be very, very unpopular with the ordinary New Zealander.” Mr Muldoon admits that certain articles resulting from the press conference; appeared in at least one edi-i tion of newspapers referred! to. His statement then lists “particulars,” which includes the following passages from the National Party’s 1975 manifesto: “The National Party strongly believes in the responsibility and autonomy of sporting and recreational bodies. Under a National Government there will be no political interference in sport in any form.

‘‘Sporting organisations will be free to associwith any sporting groups from other countries regardless of race, colour, creed, or internal politics.” The statement says that from time to time before July 19, groups like H.A.R.T. and C.A.R.E. disseminated materia! outside New Zealand. The objects of the dis-| semination included: To prevent the contin-| ■nation of sporting tours be- ’ tween sportsmen and I sportswomen from New Zealland and South Africa and, lin particular, the abandonment of the 1976 tour of ! South Africa by the All (Blacks; I To cause New Zealand 'athletes to be expelled from the 1976 Olympic Games or, alternatively, to make it appear that New Zealand was responsible for the withdrawal of athletes from certain countries from the 1976 Olympic Games; 1 To isolate New Zealand ■ sportsmen and sportswomen in international sport. i The statement says that I the material included the | following lies: I The New Zealand Governiment supported the South (African Government’s policy I of apartheid;

The New Zealand Government supported the South African Government’s policy of apartheid in sport;

The New Zealand Governjment was racist in its policies: I New Zealand sporting (organisations were not independent of the New Zealand |Government in determining (whether to have contacts or (participate in sporting tours with sporting organisations (in South Africa; The New Zealand Govern-' ment had defied a resolution of the United Nations General Assembly calling for a boycott of apartheid sport;

The New Zealand rugby team to South Africa was being paid by the New Zealand Government; The New Zealand Government, the New Zealand (Olympic Games Association, land sporting organisations in New Zealand were in violation of Olympic principles I and/or rules.

The statement puts forward three further and alternative defences:

If it was proved that Mr Muldoon spoke the words complained of, they were fair comment made in good faith and without malice upon matters of public interest;

The words complained of were spoken by Mr Muldoon in his capacity as Prime Minister and he was under a moral or social duty to communicate to the people of New Zealand his views, and the views of the Government, upon matters of general public interest and concern;

The publications were fair and accurate reports or summaries of a statement issued for the information of the public on behalf of the Government and/or the defendant and are, therefore, privk ileged. . -

Mr Adams-Smith said that a person was entitled to his own views and to criticise others but it was going too far to attack the name, character, and reputation of another person. The law, was that people could argue as much as they liked but could not get personal to the extent of making untrue statements about others. Mr Newnham could be called a supporter of the underdog and had been concerned for some time about the treatment of coloured people in South Africa under apartheid.

After the Holyoake Government had called off one New Zealand rugby' tour to South Africa and the Kirk (Government had cancelled | the 1974 Springbok tour to ’New Zealand, the National 'Party had embarked on a campaign in 1975 which indicated that there had perhaps been a change in policy. Instead of limiting contact with South Africa, there (were suggestions that there would be greater contact if National gained power. C.A.R.E. thought that its fears were realised when a ’South African softball team, (“appointed on apartheid lines,” came to New Zealand “and the Government of the day sanctioned that visit.”

That signified “proof positive” of a change in policy. .

Then the Ail Blacks went to South Africa last year and there was evidence that certain members of the Government, “including, as I understand the evidence, Mr Muldoon himself,” gave a certain amount of approval.

“It is clear from all this that the opponents of sporting ties with South Africa

(must have been somewhat (frustrated,” said Mr Adamsi Smith.

j He said that the progress .of the late 1960 s and early (1970 s appeared to have been reversed. The going of the team to South Africa did, without doubt, have a reaction around the world, much of it coming to a head in July last year when teams withdrew from the Montreal Olympics. Without doubt Mr Muldoon must have been under pressure at that time. He probably felt that he was not at all responsible for what had happened but some people were saying that he, or the policy of his Government, was responsible. In the midst of the Olympic withdrawal, the Prime Minister held the press conference. Mr Newnham heard Mr Muldoon’s statement on several news broadcasts and on television. It was also published in some newspapers. It was perhaps significant that it was not published in the “New Zealand Herald” and an article in the "Auckland Star” omitted reference to “deliberate lies.” After the statement became known, Mr Newnham I was subjected to derision, j He received dozens of I anonymous telephone calls, some of them abusive and; threatening him with injury.; He heard a radio talkback show in which he was vilified.

Mr Adams-Smith said that a lie involved a deliberate falsehood. It was not just something said in error but something deliberately false, uttered with intent to deceive. The word “Fed” indicated a form of propaganda machine.

On top of the serious smears, Mr Muldoon had said that they were lies about New Zealanders, not about him or the Government, This was a terrible allegation because it meant that a man had thrown away his country for a cause he believed in. Mr Newnham maintained that his reputation had been seriously damaged. Further, C.A.R.E. said that it had been injured. The mere invasion of a man’s right to reputation justified the payment of damages. The amount <»f damages depended on the seriousness of the attack on his name.