Police to prosecute ‘Owl’ newsletter

Press, 22 June 1989, Page 3

Police to prosecute ‘Owl’ newsletter

By

KAY FORRESTER

Leave to proceed with a criminal libel action, rare in New Zealand law, has been granted against a political newsletter published in Canterbury.

Mr Justice Fraser has ruled in the High Court that the police may proceed with a prosecution against “Owl” which alleged the former Prime Minister, Sir Robert Muldoon, accepted bribes to transfer the Government’s interest in Tasman Pulp and Paper to Challenge Corporation and Fletchers and for implementing "the Mafia’s Think Big plans.”

The name of the respondent in the case, against whom the Judge ruled there was a prima facie case that he was the publisher of the newsletter, was suppressed. Counsel for the respondent, Mr David Jones, said an appeal against Mr Justice Fraser’s decision was being considered. It was not yet clear whether there was a -right of appeal in the case of an application for leave to proceed with a prosecution.

Prosecutions for criminal libel have been few in New Zealand. The last case was in 1951.

At present Parliament is considering a defamation bill which would abolish the offence of criminal libel. Mr Justice Fraser found that the grossness of the libel by the newsletter,

the public position of Sir Robert, the nature of the publication and the article itself meant leave to prosecute should be granted.

The newsletter, “a mag-azine-type publication, consisting of some 58 pages with cartoons, various articles, recommended reading and a page of coupons for readers to use for asking to be put on the mailing list and enclosing a donation to cover costs,” was obviously designed for circulation in the community.

The relevant parts of the article “purport to be statements of fact with the particulars of names, dates and places giving the impression (albeit a spurious one) that the information is valid and vertifiable.”

The judgment says Sir Robert first complained to the police on March 23 last year and formally on April 28 last year.

Sir Robert’s attention had been drawn to the newsletter in February last year. He later learned that the newsletter had been widely circulated in some South Island electorates. He was concerned about the newsletter because of the reaction from National Party members throughout New Zealand who had read the newsletter and questioned him about it. The newsletter was dated November, 1987. The particular article, against which the Crown

wanted , to issue proceedings, was headed “The Round Table Financial Take-over of New Zealand.”

The general tenor of it was that Sir Robert accepted bribes to expedite favourable business transactions and for implementing international Mafia “think big” plans, the judgment says.

After Sir Robert complained to the police, inquiries were made and legal aspects considered. The file was sent to the Solicitor-General for opinion and authority in August last year. These were obtained in November. Instructions were given to the Crown Solicitor in Christchurch to file an application in February this year and the application was filed on April 7. The judgment says the law makes anyone publishing a criminal libel liable for a prison term not exceeding one year. If the person publishes the libel knowing it to be false, the maximum term is two years. Mr Justice Fraser did not accept submissions from the respondent’s counsel that the libel could not be regarded as a serious one because it was “so patently absurd.” It was properly characterised as a serious libel, he found.

Neither did he accept counsel’s submission that the respondent was not responsible for the newsletter or its being read by others.