Defamation appeal by Minister opens

Press, 29 February 1984, Page 8

Defamation appeal by Minister opens

PA Wellington All the evidence a jury hearing a $250,000 defamation claim against the Minister of Trade and Industry, Mr Templeton, by a businessman, Mr Bob Jones, would hear would be about Jews, the Court of Appeal was told yesterday. Mr D. J. Dalgety, counsel for Mr Templeton, said reasonable viewers of a television programme in which extracts from Mr Templeton’s speech were published might have concluded there was a common factor in Mr Jones’s expressed attitudes to a diverse grouping of people. “They might conclude the sting was that Mr Jones displayed contempt for them all by making outrageous statements about them which were hurtful or uncaring of their feelings,” he said. “If that is a reasonable sting, and I submit it is, the appellant should be permitted to call evidence to justify it." Mr Dalgety said there were three matters before the court. The first was the order made by Mr Justice Ongley striking out certain particulars of justification. The second was an appeal against the order made by Mr Justice Ongley striking out the defence of fair comment. Mr Dalgety said Mr Jus-

tice Ongley had also rejected a motion by Mr Jones’s counsel, Mr Michael Camp, that the defence of qualified privilege be struck out. Mr Camp had crossappealed. The court comprises the president, Sir Owen Woodhouse, Mr Justice Cooke, and Mr Justice McMullin. The hearing continues today. Mr Dalgety said that in January, last year, Mr Templeton announced that he would be a candidate for the Ohariu electorate in the 1984 election. Mr Jones had claimed that the National Party, including Mr Templeton, had abandoned National Party principles. Mr Dalgety said Mr Templeton’s March 2 speech was directed to Mr Jones’s fitness to become a member of Parliament representing National Party principles and to rebutting his attack on Mr Templeton and the National Government. Mr Dalgety said that on a television programme, “Eye Witness News,” in March, last year, extracts from the speech and reports of it were published and included:— “Among other things, Mr Templeton described Mr Jones as a man who despised bureaucrats, politicians, women, Jews, and professionals. “He wants us to take him

seriously. Wealth is not a basis for that. It depends on the character of the man and his record. Mr Jones is a man who despises many people ... bureaucrats, civil servants, politicians, women, Jews, and professionals. Doesn’t it sound familiar? The politics of hatred.” Mr Dalgety said that for the proceedings before the Court Mr Jones had ignored all other allegations, but had said that the allegation he despised Jews was false, malicious, and defamatory and that by reason of it he had been injured in his reputation and brought into public scandal, odium, and contempt. Mr Dalgety said Mr Jones had contended that because of the manner in which the pleadings were framed, Mr Templeton should only be permitted to justify the worlds “Mr Jones despises Jews” and therefore the other particulars were irrelevant. Mr Justice Ongley had upheld this contention. Mr Dalgety said it would come out to the jury from the programme and the correspondence, and no doubt from Mr Jones in evidence, that Mr Jones said the other allegations were laughable. “The appellant’s counsel may well submit they are not laughable, but serious, considered allegations,” Mr Dalgety said. “To which as

the jury may well collectively think — if so, why have not you proved them?” Mr Justice Cooke: On the judge’s approach you would not need to justify because the other allegations are not complained of. You would be entitled, presumably, to say to the jury, “the plaintiff has picked out just one allegation and complained of that only. He has chosen to ignore all the others. Even if he has, contrary to our argument, some complaint regarding that one allegation, the others are so stinging and, in total, so overwhelming that the one allegation about Jews need not materially have added to any damage.” On the judge’s approach that would be open to you. Mr Dalgety: That is totally unsatisfactory, with respect. My friend can make all the submissions about the words he likes and I can make all the submissions in reply. When it comes to the evidence before the jury all the evidence they are going to hear is about Jews. Mr Justice Cooke: You have accused him (Mr Jones) of indulging in politics of hate. He makes no complaints about that. Doesn’t that give you a head start in a defamation trial? Mr Dalgety: One never knows, if your Honour pleases, but I will say no.