Defamation laws in favour of plaintiffs?

Press, 5 October 1987, Page 8

Defamation laws in favour of plaintiffs?

New Zealand’s defamation laws are weighted too heavily in favour of plaintiffs, delegates to the conference were told. Professor John Burrows, of the University of Canterbury, and a specialist in news media law, said defamation laws were gravely unsatisfactory and in need of reform. A plaintiff was not required to prove fault on the part of a defendant, nor that the statement made about him was

false, nor that he suffered loss. “I know of no other branch of the law where such an oppressive combination of factors exists” he said. Corporations and politi-. cians had cornered more than their fair share of the defamation market. Individuals’ reputations deserved special protection, but he did not see why corporations, issuing shares to the public and trading in the market to make a profit, should

have as much protection. Public companies must be subject to criticism and to disclosure of facts, he said. “At times the public need to be warned. Our news media should not be made any shyer of doing this then necessity demands. It is not the reputation that defamation protects here — it is profitability.” New Zealand politicians were more frequent litigants than their counterparts in England, in spito

of what Professor Burrows described as the gentler nature of news media comment and public debate in New Zealand. , Some of the political actions brought in this country were merited, but others involved political point-scoring, he said. New Zealand’s defamation laws were also too complex. This led to long, costly court cases. “The losing defendant has a mountain of costs to add to the damages, and

the losing plaintiff will rue the day he ever brought the action. By protecting reputations so strongly, the law of defamation did not give sufficient protection to freedom of speech and the press. Professor Burrows said New Zealand should introduce a fault-based system for defamation, ceilings of damages, and encourage more use of retraction, apology, and right of reply as remedies. -