Saudis thanked N.Z. for not showing film

Press, 16 July 1983, Page 8

Saudis thanked N.Z. for not showing film

PA Wellington New Zealand’s Ambassador to Rome had received from his Saudi counterpart a letter of appreciation for. his Government’s decision not to show the television film, “Death of a Princess,” the High Court at Wellington was told yesterday. John Walton David Grey, a member of the British Diplomatic Service who was called as a witness on behalf of the Prime Minister, Mr Muldoon, said he had seen the letter.

Mr Grey said he understood the letter would be produced in evidence through Mr Muldoon.

A television executive, Desmond James Monaghan, is claiming damages of $40,000 against Mr Muldoon. The hearing, before Mr Justice Savage and jury, will resume on Monday. 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 unacceptable 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 that the network director-general, Mr Alan Morris, and the controller of

programming, Mr Monaghan, took the view that the film should be shown.

Mr Muldoon is alleged to have said that 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 words complained of have the meaning which Mr Monaghan alleges. Mr Muldoon says that the words complained of were, in their ordinary meaning, true in substance and in fact in their application to Mr Monaghan. In evidence, Mr Grey said he was now employed in London as head of the Maritime, Aviation, and Environmental Department in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

He said that in July, 1977, a princess and a man alleged to be her lover were executed in Jeddah. There was very little news media interest in the incident within Saudi Arabia, and none outside. Six months later, however, it had been the subject of newspaper comment in Britain.

“A gentleman who had been working in Saudi Arabia had witnessed the

execution and taken a photograph of it. That photograph and accompanying articles were published in British newspapers,” he said.

Mr Grey said that on January 31, 1978, the Arabian Embassy in London issued a public statement on the matter, relating to a 8.8. C. news item screened several days before.

The statement, read to the Court by Mr Grey, said: "The news item alleged that a Saudi princess and a Saudi citizen she married were executed because the man did not belong to the Saudi Royal Family.

“The Saudi Arabian Government deeply regretted that such unfounded news was transmitted officially in a broadcast by the 8.8. C. which also carried a British Government’s spokesman comment.

The Saudi statement said: “The Saudi Arabian Government has subsequently received an official apology from the British Government for its comments on this particular news item. “To clarify the issue:— The sentence carried out was passed by an Islamic court as punishment for the adulterous acts committed by tiie two accused persons. It is a crime for which the punishment, according to Islamic law (Sharia) is

death. The couple were not married.”

Mr Grey said “Death of a Princess” was shown in Britain on April 9, 1980.

The Saudi Arabian statement reported the Saudi Minister of Information as saying that the Council of Ministers had described the film as shameful, untruthful, and aimed at discrediting the principles of Islam. It criticised the negative attitude taken by the British Government on the matter.

Mr Grey said he was sure the Saudis would regard as a “pertinent fact” the credit given to the B.C.N.Z. for its association with the production of “Death of a Princess.”

He said he thought that representations made by a government to a television company would be taken into account favouraly by the Saudis. “I have seen a letter from the Saudi Arabian Ambassador in Rome to the New Zealand Ambassador in Rome who is, I believe, accredited to Saudi Arabia, in which the Saudi Ambassador passes on the appreciation of his Government for what 1 believe he characterised as the wise decision of your Government not to show the film,” he said. “I think that is also a factor which would have been taken into account.”