Mr O’Brien fails

Press, 14 June 1980, Page 4

Mr O’Brien fails

Nelson reporter I The former leader of the 'Social Credit League, John [Bernard O’Brien, has been: unsuccessful in his $50,000 defamation suit against they league in the High Court at i Nelson. [ After an 85-minute retire- , 'ment yesterday, a jury of six men and six women:, gave “no” answers to- the;; first two of six issues put to! them for a verdict. These • answers were all that was re-j quired for a judgment for the defendant. Mr Justice Ongley entered judgment, with costs. He granted the plaintiff; leave to move for a new trial within 21 days. I Mr W. V. Gazley appeared.; for Mr O’Brien, and Mr P.| D. McKenzie and Miss C. M. (1 Grice appeared for they league. The action arose from ay writ issued by the league] l against three persons asp first defendants and Mr’; O’Brien as second defendant.’l on November 21, 1972. and ah subsequent article in rheji “Nelson Evening Mail,”'! which was based on the'l writ's statement of claim] and published on November-' 22. '1 Mr O’Brien claimed a total; of $50,000 — $25,000 in gen-h eral and aggravated damages;' and $25,000 in punitive dam- 1 ages. . h Background to the case;' was the split in the Social; Credit League in May, 1972.1: the formation of the New! Democrat Party with Mr]; O’Brien as leader and the;' controversy surrounding the,: winding up of the league’s' Nelson branch, disposition of j its assets and those of its social club. |:

I The two issues to which the jurv answered “no” were: “Were the words set our in paragraph o of the 'statement of claim published to the Mail by any person acting with the authority or the league before publication of the "words in the ‘Mail’.’: and “were the words in paragraph 5 of the statement of claim published to the readers of the ‘Mail by a person acting with the authority of the league." Although the plaintiff had attempted to put a sinister consfucrion on everything the league had acted in-' the. writ was issued in 1972 : the league had acetd in-; nocentlv throughout, said Mr] McKenzie in his closing address to the jury. The plaintiff alleged he had been named as a party: to the league’s action in ; 1972 just four days before the General Election, to dis-’ credit him. said Mr: McKenzie. But the league’s advising counsel. Dr Barton.; had given evidence that Mr; O’Brien was made a party' to] the proceedings only because; he was the new Democrat; Party's leader. It was for legal reasons only that Mr O’Brien was broug'ht into it, he said. The plaintiff suggested something deliberate on the nart of the league to get the statement of claim published in the paper. There was no evidence of this. The worst that could be. said was that the branch; i president., Mr Mahan, was; approached by a reporter, declined to comment and; ■said that if he wanted any; 'more information he would: (need to go to the court-; house. “There was nothing; Isinister about that.” he said, i

"O'Brien brought this situation on himself. If he had had stricter control over his own party members this matter might never have arisen.” said Mr McKenzie. Mr Gaziev, in his closing address, said: “We have heard for SO minutes arguments that the league is innocent of everything. If that is their argument, then there would have been one person,. in court now. who con'd have proved this. That is Mr Riddoch, the league's solicitor in Nelson. He. could have told you if they w.fre innocent because he was involved. “Innocence is not a matter of argument.'it is a matterof how long'it’would take to have one honest person establish the innocence of the league. But, no Mr Riddoch.” , Mr Gazley suggested to :members of the jury that they would not like to have alleged against them the ! .words of the statement of 'claim as published in the .‘Mail.’ “Somebody told Mr Mahan .about the writ, and the oniy one who could give out that information was the person who was going to file it — Mr Riddoch,” said Mr Gazley. He told the jury that if it did not award substantial damages to Mr O’Brien “the league will continue to usn these allegations against him." In his summing up, his Honour said no inference could be drawn from the non-appearance of Mr Riddoch. “You might have liked to have heard from Mr Riddoch but you cannot conjecture what he may have isaid or done,” he said.