LAW OF LIBEL.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 990, 3 December 1910, Page 6

LAW OF LIBEL.

• 4. PROPOSAL BY THE ATTORNEYGENERAL. TO CHECK ABUSE. BY "WORTHLESS, BASE, BRUTAL, FALSE, VILE VILIFIERS." In moving the sccond reading of tho Law of Libel Amendment Bill in tho Legislative Council yesterday tho At-torney-General'said tho Bill did not go quite as far as English law, and he thought rightly so. After referring briefly to tho various clauses of tho Bill, Dr. Findlay said that every now and then tho public sense of decency and fair play, was outraged by the production and widespread publication of some vile, false, and blackguardly pamphlet directed against the character of prominent men, especially thoso in public life. The publisher was invariably some worthless, if not criminal, creature, who elccd out -his living by the sale 011 tho streets or elsewhere of his defamatory production. His purpose was never public interest 'or. benefit, but to put money into his' own' pocket by means of base attack upon decent men and women. 'Such a man making a.living in such a way was worse than an idle vagabond, who, under'the law of today, wo had no hesitation in punishing by summary proceedings before a magistrate. Unfortunately tho law of to-day . afforded no effective means or' protection from these defaming ruffians. He had drafted a. clause for tho Libel Amendment Bill some time ago, and had submitted it to the Prime Minister when the Bill was before "another place." Sir Joseph Ward, however, felt that as he was one who had suffered more than anyone else of late from this mercenary defamation, he could hardly take the initiative, and ho refused to.take'the' amendment. He (Dr. Findlay) respected the delicacy of tho Prime Minister, but ho thought it was tho duty of the Council and. public men to see that protection was ' given against such brutal attacks. He had " not consulted Cabinet in regard to an amendment ho was bringing forward, but ho was going to ask tho Council to afford protection against the degraded methods of these base vilifiers. He was confident that if the Council inserted the clauso and sent it on to "another place" neither party would demur as to the insertion of the clause. Tho Proposed Amendment. The clauso ho would, move in Committee was as under:— . "The indictable offence of publishing a defamatory libel or of criminal defamation within tho meaning of the Crimes Act, 1908, shall also bo an offence punishable on summary, conviction beforo a Magistrate by a fine of one hundred ppuwls or by imprisonment' for threo 1 months. In any such summary pro-. ceedings it shall be a good defence that 1 the defamatory, matter published by the 1 defendant was true, and that tho publication thereof was for tho public bene--1 fit, but no evidence of tho truth of such flatter shall bo admissible until and j unless tho defendant proves that, assuming the matter so published to be true, the publication thereof was for tlie public banefit. An information for ' any offence punishable on . summary conviction' under this section shall bo . taken and hoard before a Magistrate ' 'only, and. no such prosecution ■ shall" he commenced without tho order of a i Magistrate; and notice of the intention ' to apply for such an- order shall be giveu to tho defendant, who shall have an-opportunity of being heard against I tho application." The only change to bo made in tho law under tho amendment was that ' when a man such as they had in mind canio before a Magistrato ho should J first bo called on to show that the I defamation was for, the public benefit, j In these brutal attacks, said Dr. Findlay, tho end was not public benefit at all. ' As a matter of fact, he knew of.- a recent; caso where sums of money wero demanded, "and where a total issuo of a certain pamphlet was offered at a prico ' if tho person attacked chose to pay it. J Liko a man, however, tho person con--1 cerned had refused to pay the money. J .Vile assassins of . the nature referred to should bo dealt with, and he be- ' lieved the clauso lib had, mentioned' J would meet tho evil, and afford, somo • reasonable measure of protection .to public men who wero trying to do thoir duty to tho country. (Hear, hoar.) j ■ Tho Hon. W. C. F. Carncross' (Taranaki) considered that, the Bill would,afj ford a measure of -protection . to news- , papers which they had not enjoyed in • the past. Ho welcomed the measure as an instalment ■ of justice to tho nowspaper profession,. and thought it would not be many years beforo the Bill would j bo extended. In his opinion, the At-torney-General had done tho right thing B in bringing in. the amendment he had f outlined, . Much Advertised. Tho Hon. J. E. Jenkinson (WellingF ton) expressed tho opinion that the ,• amendment had given moro pleasure to the Council thnn anything they had ' had for weeks. Ho thought the clause drafted by Dr. Findlay would meet tho difficulty. Tho Council was pretty well conversant with a certain filthy pamphlet and ho did not want to. say very much about it as it had already been t mlich advertised. Tho production arose from a' cesspool mind and crected a structure of filth and mire. There was e 110 sense of justico or cleanliness in the production, which was simply an ati tempt to destroy a public mail. Alnidst every man in Now Zealand would • ho most anxious to see such a clause ® put on tho Statuto Book as' the At- ' torney-Ceneral suggested. Ho thought, I _, however, far more 'discretion should be .] left to judges. and magistrates in de- ). ciding what was defamation or libel. •- Tho Council should see that not only newspapers, were protected, but that 7 public men should bo protected from the '• vilo abuse' heaped on them. 3 Tho Hon. R. A. Loughnan (Welling- '• ton) expressed his hearty approval oi the . Bill. No man could object to the l " clauso proposed by Dr.- Findlay which was 'aimed at scoundrels only. The jHon.. W.. Beclian (Auckland) re ferred ■ to a libel which had been printec against himself in a northern paper, Tho article, ho said, was couched in tin d lowest and most vile language. This i- 'had been written by tho samo man wlic ,g had figured prominently of late. Thra m months' imprisonment was too little s _ Suclj a man as ho referred-to would dc ■ it and pose as a martyr. Ho woulc j. "do it on his head" so to speak. ' n i ;i- "Three Months Hard." 7 Dr. Findlay: Don't you believe it Evorv man is afraid.of "threo month: " hard." t, Mr. Beelian added that ho thoughi to thoro should bo a longer term of im :y prisonment and a heavier monetary in penalty. While wo wero at it we shoul'c Is mako the Bill tbo terror of evil-doers. 53 Tho Hon. J. Barr (Canterbury) sait tho publication to which Mr. Beehai 1 bad roforred in no way represented till opinion, of Labour. Ho bolioved tin m man who produced tho pamphlet tlia nt had been so rightly condemned was U a- a groat extent a tool, although a will 111 ing tool. 3r Tho Hons. C. M. Luko and H. F lo Wigram also welcomed tho Bill, is Dr. Findlay, in reply, said tlioclausi ll f 110 had framod was not for ' tlie pro s ' tection of any 0110 man. Tlioro 3ia< jJJ never been a Priino Minister in Nov a . Zealand who had not had to suffo: from somo similar kind of vilo abusi and blackguardly attack. g- The second reading of tho Bill wa: is, agreed to. is "When the Bill was in Committee thi ■,hcb<. h? tho Aii/mw

General was adopted and tho Bill was ' reported with amendments. Tho Bill was subsequently read a third time and passed without discussion. DISCUSSION IN THE HOUSE. POWERS OF MAGISTRATES. ' When tho Libel Bill was returned to tho House tho Hon. J. A. Millar explained that when certain matters were referred to in tho Houie recently it was stated that if a clauso wero introduced to meet tho caso it would bo passed unanimously. Under the existing law a defendant had to prove two things— one, tho truth of tho statements, and, secondly, that they wero for tho public benefit. It was open to 11 defendant to attempt to prove either of these defences first. As a rule tho attempt was .made to prove tho truth first. Then when a defendant had thrown as much mild as possible he sometimes did not go any further. Now it was proposed that a defendant should bo compelled to provo that tbo matter was for the public benefit. If he failed lio was guilty of defamatory libel. If he wero' ablo to provo that it was in the public interest then ho would have to prove the truth of the statements. Before one could bring an action one must submit tho matter to a magistrato. This was a fair way to protect a man against those who had nothing to lose by defaming bimi ■ Mr. Wright (Wellington South) said he had every sympathy with the clause, but lio considered that public interest was impossible to prove to a jury. It was purely a matter of opinion. He asked that tho matter be allowed to stand over. Mr. Laurenson said it would bo easy to prove that it was in the public interest to publish facts showing that a man's previous career unfitted him for a position to which it was proposed to appoint him. ■ ; Mr. Herdman (Wellington' North) asked whether tho clauso / would give stipendiary magistrates power to deal with criminal libel and do away to. that extent with trial by jury. ' Mr. Millar: Up to £100 fine or three months' imprisonment.A Very Serious Matter. Mr.-.Herdman said he had not a great deal of confidence in some of tlio stipendiary magistrates. There'were many oxcellent 1 men among them, but there were somo who made grave mistakes, and ho was not sure that it was wise to extend tho scopo of tho law in this way. -At present tho caso had to go before a magistrato first, and. it rested with tho magistrato whether it'should go further or not. . Tho defendant had to go before a jury beforo ho could bo punished. He sympathised with tho object of tho clause, but. it should bo looked at broadly, and not only in refcrcnco to ono particular case. It was a very serious matter to deprive, "the citizens of ono. of their ordinary rights. Mr. Massey also sympathised with the object of tho clauso, but thought it would place too much power/ in tho hands of tho magistrates. • Tho magistrates. wore not independent in tho same.way, as tho Supreme Court Judges and therefore tho people .had less confidence in. them. Ho thought. the amendment should be' disagreed with, so tliat a conferonco could be held and Supremo Court Judges substituted for magistrates. He would then liko tho clause to-go further and apply, to anybody who attempted to identify decent men with a dofamatory- libel. The Minister, in reply, pointed out there was tho right of appeal. Mr. Herdman: But a man has to find security. ' -. Proceeding,: Mr. Millar said that, a magistrato could give a vagrant threo months. Surely it was a worse offence for anyone, to liye by defaming others ? It was just a question whether further steps should not be taken to - protect public men against defamation by "men of straw." . "' ' Tho new clauso was then agreed to.