$22,000 damages against TV2

Press, 21 September 1977, Page 3

$22,000 damages against TV2

PA Wellington A jury in the Supreme Court at Wellington has awarded damages of' $22,000 to Jethro Eric' Medcalf, director of the; Social Welfare Department at Wanganui J against the Broadcasting Corporation for defamation. The claim related to two TV2 programmes on March 22 — “First Edition” and “Late Edition.” Mr Medcalf' sought damages of $100,000; in respect of each. The jury found that words, in the “Late Edition” broad-j cast were defamatory of Mr Medcalf and that the Broad-! casting Corporation was; actuated by malice in publishing the words. It rejected his claim in relation to the “First Edition” broadcast. Mr T. G. Goddard, representing Mr Medcalf, moved for judgment in accordance i with the jury’s verdict and asked the court for a certifiI cate for costs. . At the request of Mr M. J. O’Brien, Q.C., who appeared for the Broadcasting Corporation, Mr Justice Ongley adjourned the motion until today. Mr O’Brien said his main reason for asking that the motion be adjourned for further consideration was the question of costs. In his summing-up, his (Honour told-the jury that it was the honesty of belief of the television reporter,, a Mr Brown, that lay at the heart of the case. This depended cn the reliability of his sources of information and whether

his faith in them was justi- ■ fled. Mr Brown had, because of a journalist’s code of ethics, declined to name his sources, ■said his Honour. ! He had no legal right to ■ remain silent on that topic, i but his Honour said he had j exercised his discretion in | Mr Brown’s favour by not requiring Mr Brown to answer questions on the matter. The result was that the I jury might be denied the opportunity to evaluate the sources of information and' their likely effect on Mr ißrown’s mind. j The jury had to rely; I largely on what Mr Brown' I said he believed, said his j Honour. j The jury deliberated al-! (most 5J hours yesterday oni ! the eight issues put to it. I The jury found that thei “First Edition” item on! March 22 referred to Mr i Medcalf by reason of the fact "that the plaintiff is and was at all material times generally known to be the director of Social Welfare in Wanganui or that it was generally] I known that the plaintiff in his capacity as Director of . Social Welfare was the controlling officer of, and resI ponsible for, the office of the ■ Department of Social Wel- ■ fare at Wanganui.” In the second issue the jury was . asked to decide: 1 were the words spoken- on ' the "Fiftt Edition” item on March 22 as set out in the ! statement of claim defamatory of Mr Medcalf in that' they meant and were under- ] to mean he had removed papers, from a departmental file asked for by the Ombudsman in connection with an investigation into the treatment of a bpy aged 14 aj Lake AHce Hospital?

I The jury answered. "No.” It also answered “No" to the question whether the i words meant and were! understood to mean that Mr I Medcalf was a person who (was prepared to conceal! ifrom the Ombudsman parts of an official file. The jury was asked! : whether the words meant I and were understood to! ; mean that Mr Medcalf was a ’ I person who was prepared to! i deceive or prepared to allow I ! his officers to deceive the j i Ombudsman in the course of • !an official inquiry. It answered, “No.” Also in relation to the I “First Edition” broadcast. ] ; the jury found that the Broadcasting Corporation I was not actuated by malice iby publishing the words complained of. i The jury found that the! ("Late Edition” item oni March 22 referred to Mr Medcalf. It also found that the words broadcast in the defendant’s “Late Edition”! programme on March 22. in I their natural and ordinary] meaning, were defamatory of Mr Medcalf in that they! ( meant and were understood] to mean that reasonable; (grounds existed for; suspecting that Mr Medcalf! or officers under his control] ; with his knowledge removed! : important papers from de-; partmental files' held in Mr I Medcalf’s office at Wanganui ; which files were required by the Ombudsman as being (relevant to inquiries into the treatment of a 14-year-old . boy at Lake Alice Hospital. The jury also found in relation to the “Late Edition” broadcast that the defendant was actuated by malice in publishing the words complained of.