LAW OF SLANDER

Dominion, Volume 31, Issue 270, 11 August 1938, Page 13

LAW OF SLANDER

Broadcast Debates From

Parliament

ARE THEY PRIVILEGED?

“The manner in which the radio broadcasting services have been used during the past few weeks has drawn attention to certain weaknesses in the law of slander which public opinion will soon force the Legislature to remedy,” said Mr. O. C. Mazengarb, National Party candidate for Wellington Suburbs, in an address yesterday to Wellington business men at a luncheon at the National Club.

“The broadcasting of Parliamentary debates has also drawn attention to another interesting question,’’ Mr. Mazengarb continued. “Members of Parliament have always enjoyed certain rights and privileges in the discharge of their legislative duties. One of these privileges is complete immunity from civil or criminal action for anything said in the House. Lins protection arose at a time when they spoke to one another only, and when ‘strangers' were not permitted in tlie galleries. But the position in New Zealand to-day is somewhat different from what it was in England. Our statute provides that members of Parliament shall hold and enjoy the same privileges as were held by the members of the British House of Commons on January 1, 1865. Does the fact that Parliamentary debates are now broadcast in New Zealand deprive our representatives of their cherished privilege? “The members of the House of Commons certainly did not have the privilege of talking slander over the radio from their places in Parliament in 1865, and if the New Zealand Parliament does not resolve the doubt that now exists, some members will run the risk of the courts interpreting the statutory protection they have held, and think they still hold, in a way they will not like. In the meantime, however, they are secure in the knowledge 'that they cannot be made to attend court and have this question settled for at least 10 days after Parliament rises.” Libel or Slander? The average member of the public might have difficulty in understanding how it was that a private letter describing a person as a drunkard, a malicious or malevolent liar might give rise to an action for heavy damages, but the same charges shouted in the street or broadcast over the radio might leave a person unjustly defamed entirely without remedy, said Mr. Mazengarb. Yet such was the state of the law. A man might call a person a malicious liar and that person had no redress, but if a record were taken of the speech and that was broadcast, the .person defamed would have an. action for damages, not because of what was broadcast, but because of the record. The anomaly arose from the early distinctions drawn between libel and slander when the principles of English law had first been developed. Speaking generally, libel was a defamatory statement in a permanent form, such as a newspaper, a picture, or a letter; but in slander, the words were merely spoken. Because of the transitory nature of the spoken word, slander was not actionable unless the person slandered had suffered some monetary loss as the result. There had always been a few exceptional cases of slander where action could be brought for general damages, as, for instance, where the words imputed that plaintiff had committed a criminal offence. Even an oral allegation of immorality, however, had not been actionable until 40 years ago, when the Legislature had softened the rigour of the law by permitting women to bring actions for slander in cases where unchastity had been alleged against them. But w’h-en attempts had been made to extend the law to meet other cases of objectionable slander the courts had very properly stated that any such extension was a matter entirely for the Legislature. The art! ficial distinction between libel and slander had been adopted at a time when the means of conveyance did not permit of people assembling in very large numbers and long before their words could be sent over the air to thousands of listeners in a flash..

“Mr. Scrimgeour’s action on Sunday evening following hard upon other intemperate statements from Parliament itself has focused public attention upon the necessity for some amendment of the law,” said Mr. Mazengarb. “Surely the Legislature cannot continue to allow the air to be used for disseminating what may be dastardly slanders without providing some means of redress for the persons affected. If the present Government will not meet the situation this session, electors will just have to bear the matter in mind when they go to the ballot box.”