Radical libel law changes sought

Press, 3 August 1985, Page 7

Radical libel law changes sought

PA Wellington The newspaper industry has urged the Government to alter radically the defamation laws. Claims for at least $3O million, based on present laws, are outstanding. The industry wants juries barred from defamation trials and an upper limit placed on the damages which can normally be awarded against an unsuccessful defendant.

It has also argued, in submissions to the Minister of Justice, Mr Palmer, that plaintiffs should be required to prove defamatory statements had caused them measurable financial loss or substantial damage to their reputation. In the submission, a committee of the Newspaper Publishers’ Association said changes recommended in a 1977 report on defamation should be the absolute minimum contained in an amendment to the Defamation Act, 1954, which Mr Palmer expects to introduce in Parliament this year. The amendment must go much further, however, “if there is a real determina-

tion to liberalise the law in order to enhance freedom of speech, while still protecting the position of the individual.”

The scene had changed dramatically, the committee said, since the 1977 report had cited a damages award of $22,000 as the highest which had so far been made.

In 1983, damages of $102,000 were awarded in one case and $lBO,OOO in another.

“Claims for $500,000 to $1 million are now fairly frequent, and the latest is a single claim for $lO million,” the committee said. The total claims outstanding against one publishing group amounted to about $24 million.

The committee questioned whether damages should be seen as a punishment for a defamatory remark or whether they were in fact being used “to obtain the pot of gold.” “Equally,” it said, “one must ask if a reputation can really be damaged to the extent of $500,000 or $1 million except by, or even

by, the most malicious and reckless libel.”

The committee said legal costs represented an additional penalty on defendants, even if they were successful, and quoted a typical case this year where $33,000 in legal fees had to be paid in addition to damages of $45,000.

The committee recommended five grades of damages be established, ranging from negligible (less than $500) to heavy ($20,000 to $40,000), and suggested rarely awarded punitive damages be left unlimited. Arguing for the abolition of juries in defamation cases, the committee said that trials before a judge alone would be shorter and less expensive. The public, and therefore juries, were naturally biased against the news services, the committee said, and were more likely than a judge to give undue weight to emotional factors in reaching their verdict.

There was also evidence that the law of defamation was far too complex for the layman. The committee supported

a recommendation of the 1977 report that a new defence against a defamation charge be written into the law.

However, it argued that the new defence, originally intended to be available only to the news services, should be available to individuals as well. The committee also recommended that:

Appeals for public assistance by a senior police officer should be covered by absolute privilege.

Documents should not be excluded from qualified privilege purely because they may be marked “confidential.”

The limitation period for defamation actions should be reduced from six years to six months, with an extension for up to one year under exceptional circumstances.

The Government should consider setting up a defamation conciliation service to avoid the need for trials where mutually acceptable settlements could be reached.