TV film defence case opens

Press, 15 July 1983, Page 4

TV film defence case opens

PA Wellington The Prime Minister’s observation that a television executive, Desmond James Monaghan, supported the screening of the film, “Death of a Princess,” was based on information he received from the chairman of the Broadcasting Corporation, a jury was told yesterday. Mr J. D. Dalgety, counsel for Mr Muldoon, was opening the defence case in the High Court at Wellington, where Mr Monaghan, Television New Zealand’s controller of programming, is claiming damages of ?40,000 against Mr Muldoon. The hearing, before Mr Justice Savage and a jury, will continue today.

The statement of claim says that on July 8,1980, the board of the Broadcasting Corporation issued a press release giving reasons why “Death of a Princess” a television film, was not acceptable for screening. It is claimed that on July 8, 1980, Mr Muldoon falsely and maliciously published, concerning Mr Monaghan, the words that he was disturbed the Director-General of the network, Mr Alan Morris, and the controller of programming, Mr Des Monaghan, took the view that the film should be shown.

Mr Muldoon is alleged to have said this made their judgment suspect, suggested their interest was simply in entertainment, and that they were quite irresponsible in the wider aspects of their jobs.

In the statement of defence, Mr Muldoon denies that the words complained of have the meaning which Mr Monaghan alleges. Mr Muldoon says the words complained of were, in their natural and ordinary meaning, true in substance and in fact in their application to Mr Monaghan.

Mr Dalgety said that on July 8, 1980, the Prime Minister made certain remarks, the substance of which were accurately attributed to him by Mr Monaghan in his statement of claim, during a television news item reporting the decision of the Broadcasting Board that the film would not be screened.

Mr Dalgety said Mr Muldoon would say that, having said to the reporter that he was pleased with the decision, he had gone on to say that the international situation outweighed the other reasons advanced by the board. He had then made the remarks attributed to him, and they were directed to the responsibilities that should be attached to broadcasters in making decisions on important programmes “that could have real effect on our way of life.” Mr Dalgety said that in terms of a response given to Caroline McGrath, a television journalist, it was plain that Mr Monaghan accepted the Prime Minister’s statement that he took the view the film should be shown.

“We know that, in giving his evidence in court of his recollection as it stands in 1983, he said something different,” Mr Dalgety said. “That is a very important matter that you have got to weigh as to whether what he said here, some three years later, is the position or what the words meant in your opinion when they were put to Miss McGrath some three years ago. “That clearly is going to be one of the big issues in this case. The source of the Prime Minister’s information was Mr lan Cross, the chairman of the New Zealand Broadcasting Corporation. He is the corporation’s top man. He is a full-time chairman. He has held that post since 1977 and he has

had a distinguished career, largely in journalism, before he took up the appointment,” Mr Dalgety said. Earlier. Mr Morris, a television consultant for the 8.C.N.Z., gave evidence. He said Mr Monaghan had never given any indication to him on whether the film should be screened. There had never been any discussion between him and Mr Monaghan about the controversial implications of the film. Mr Morris said he was “naturally rather distressed” when he heard the Prime Minister’s remarks and was “somewhat confused” about the linking of his name with Mr Monaghan’s in the statement. Mr Morris said he recalled that the same day or the next day the chairman made a press release to the effect “that I was the only one who had submitted a report on this programme, and that my report was wholly constructive and responsible.” He thought they were the words used about it. Asked what his reaction was to the chairman’s press release, Mr Morris said: “Well, I felt it certainly went quite a long way to meeting my own feelings of resentment perhaps and concern about what the Prime Minister had said.”

Asked how he considered the Prime Minister’s remarks as far as they related to himself, Mr Morris said: “Well, at some subsequent point, it might have been a week or so later, I was quite frankly fairly incensed by what I considered to be unfair criticism so I sought legal advice.”

Asked for his reasons for not proceeding with legal action against Mr Muldoon, Mr Morris said they concerned his family.