ACTION FOR LIBEL

Dominion, Volume 37, Issue 122, 18 February 1944, Page 6

ACTION FOR LIBEL

Politician Awarded £2OO Damages PUBLICATION OF ELECTION PARAGRAPH Publication of a paragraph in the “Evening Post,” Wellington, during the general election campaign, resulted in an action for libel being heard in the Supreme Court, Wellington, yesterday before Mr. Justice Elair and a jury of twelve. After a retirement of 50 minutes, the jury found for plaintiff, Frank Langstone. M.P., former Minister of the Crown and High Commissioner for New Zealand in Canada, for an amount of £2OO on a claim for £2OOO damages against Blundell Brothers, Ltd., proprietors of the “Post.” • , The statement of claim said that plaintiff had been a member of live New Zealand Parliaments, and that at the date of publication of the paragraph complained of wits a candidate for the 27th Parliament of the Dominion. I'rom about December, 1085, till about December, 1042, he held office’ as a Minister of the Crown, and from about May, 1042, till about October, 1942, he held office as High Commissioner for New Zealand in Canada. In the issue of the “Post” of September 17, 1943, the statement continued, defendant company falsely and maliciously published the following words: “Mr. Langstone’s Recall; ‘Mr. Langstone was very annoyed at being recalled from Canada,’ said Mr. R. Malcolm (Independent), in an address last evening. ‘But I happen to know why he was recalled, and if I were to tell you the .facts you would agree with me that this was the proper thing to do. Even the Labour Government could not do otherwise. Those words, it was alleged, meant or were understood to mean that the plaintiff, during his term of office as High Commissioner, had been guilty of such misconduct as to necessitate his recall from that office by the Labour Government, and that he had, in fact, been so recalled. He had been much injured in his credit and reputation by the publication. and he had been brought into public odium and contempt. The defence denied that the publication was malicious, and said that it was a true and accurate account of a statement made by Mr. Malcolm in the course of a speech. It denied the other allegations made by the plaintiff regarding the inference of misconduct, injury to the plaintiff and odium and contempt. After the publication, the statement of defence went on, representations having been made that plaintiff had not been recalled from Canada, the defendant published in the “Evening Post” on September 21 the following statement: “The statement was printed by the ‘Post’ without perception of the error in the use ■of the word ‘recall.’ The fact that Mr. Langs.tone resigned was published in the ‘Post’ at the time and has been frequently repeated in reports of debates on the question. We regret, nevertheless, that publicity should have been given to any statement conveying a different impression.” If the words had auy meaning at all defamatory of the plaintiff, the defence contended, then the defendant, by the publication of September 21, had made a sufficient public apology and pleaded such apology in mitigation of damage. Mr. G. G. Watson, with him Mr. W. P. Shorland, appeared for plaintiff, and Mr. H. F. O’Leary, K.C., with him Mr. H. E. Evans, for defendant. Case for Plaintiff.

Opening the case for plaintiff, Mr. Watson said he intended to submit that the libel alleged was very serious, having very serious consequences. Though the article in question appeared at election time, and though the parties were both well known and representated probably different schools of political thought, the jury were asked to approach this case free of all political consideration. All they were asked to vindicate was plaintiff’s right, irrespective of creedr political party or political beliefs, to protect his character if it had been wrongly assailed and to claim an amount of damages for any injury he might so have suffered.

Continuing, counsel said that plaintiff, of his own free will, resigned his position in Canada as the result of a grievance he had over a Washington appointment. Counsel said it did not matter whether that grievance was well-founded or not Mr. Langstone, of his own volition, resigned his position in Canada. He returned to New Zealand, and immediately after his arrival here tendered to Cabinet his resignation as a Minister of the Crown. He did not resign from Parliament or the Labour Party. He was still a member of both, and of the Parliamentary group of the Labour Party. The statement that plaintiff had been annoyed at his recall was in itself defamatory, said Mr. Watsofl, but the worst words appeared in the latter part of the paragraph. There were really two defamatory statements wrapped up in the one paragraph. It was submitted that the words in the second part clearly imputed misconduct to the .plaintiff—allegedly so serious that even the Labour Government was forced to dismiss or recall Mr. Langstojie. Counsel’s submission was that the- words were particularly . mischievous, leaving to the imagination what was the nature of the alleged misconduct. It was about the most serious thing which could be said about a man in a public position, and plaintiff was claiming substantial reparations. Plaintiff, on seeing the “Post’s” published paragraph, had immediately sent a telegram to Mr. Malcolm, , who had replied. The apology made by the “Post” referred only to the word “Recall.” . It made not one syllable of reference to what was the ten times more serious part of the alleged libel. It merely regretted that the word “recall” had been used. It was not even an apology. Mr. Langstone’s Evidence.

Giving evidence, plaintiff said that on September 5, 1942, the Prime Minister visited Ottawa. Plaintiff discharged the official duties required of him, and subsequently, in a private discussion, he brought to the notice of Mr. Fraser the question regarding the Washington appointment. In consequence of the discussion which ensued, plaintiff told the Prime Minister he could not continue as Canadian representative, and would resign. His resignation was wholly duq to his dissatisfaction over the appointment to Washington. When he read in the “Evening Post the report of Mr. Malcolm’s remarks he felt that his character had been maligned, that his reputation was at stake, and that the minds of a very large number of people throughout New Zealand had been poisoned against him by the statement made. He wondered at the time what,was behind a remark by Mr. Malcolms “I happen to know why he was recalled.” To him that implied that some secret information must be available to Mr. Malcolm. There was no truth whatew'r in the statement that he was recalled. nor was there any truth in a statement that there were any facts whatever which might force the Labour Government to recall him. . Plaintiff said he sent a telegram immediately to Mr. Malcolm stating: 1 the report appearing in Fridays Evening Post’ attributed to you concerning my being recalled from Canada is correct, J will issue a writ for damages for. the puo lication of such a false, malicious and completely untrue statement. I tendered my resignation as High Commissioner of Canada voluntarily, and was not recalled. I shall call the Prime Mimste. to testify that your remarks are untrue in every particular.” From Mr. Malcolm, plaintiff received the following telegram in reply: “Press report die. not give full interpretation of subject matter of my address. Have made immediate cor rectiou this evening’s paper. Please lish my immediate retraction and regretThe circumstances of your resignation were known and had my sympathy. Subsequently plaintiff received the following letter from the editor of the “Even ing Post”: “Enclosed we send a clipping of°a Press Association message regarding your telegram to Mr. R. Malcolm, ami our comment thereon. We have invest) ■' gated the question and find that the paragraph was apparently passed in the hurry of election sub-editing, by a member or our staff who did not appreciate its contradiction of the previously ■ published facts. As we have publicly stated, we regret that this mistake should have been given publicity.” Plaintiff said he had never received any other form of apolog)' Mr. O’Leary: I suppose it is correct to say that you politicians give hard

knocks and expect to receive hard knocks? , , . Plaintiff: Never below the belt. Well, with that qualification, yon give hard knocks and expect to ret - c *'J hard knocks?—l have taken many haio knocks, and have never complained. Mr. O’Leary suggested to plaintiff that politicians depended on the Press a » iell j deal for publicity about themselves and also their opponents. Plaintiff said the Press had a public responsibility. It received very iai»e concessions because it was the P uD Press and purveyor of news, giving veiy valuable information to the public. You say that the statement meant you were guilty of misconduct? — Obviously. I pointed it out in my first telegram to Mr. Malcolm.” , The word “misconduct’; was not used in that telegram?—“But it is implied. _ Under further cross-examination plaintiff said it was the Prime Minister’s attitude toward himself and not the appointment of Mr. Nash to Washington which was responsible for his resignation. It was not over the appointment of Mr. Nash that plaintiff complained of the Prime Minister’s treatment. Mr. O’Leary: The long and the short of it was that you had a violent disagreement with the Prime Minister while he was in Canada? —“I told him what I thought of his actions.” And you told him, in accordance with jour statements from the public platform, in language that was not fit for ladies to hear? —“I don’t deny it.” Continuing, plaintiff affirmed statements which he was reported to have said in connexion with the Prime Minister’s alleged “double-crossing” of him. Mr. O’Leary said plaintiff might have difficulty in convincing a jury of that in view of the finding of the Easter Conference of the Labour Party, which considered that there had been no “doublecrossing,” and that Mr. Langstone had not suffered an injustice.

This concluded the case for plaintiff. Mr. O’Leary called only one witness, Leonard John Cronin, journalist, who testified that his report of what was said by Mr. Malcolm at his meeting was absolutely correct. Case For Defence.

Mr. O’Leary, addressing the jury, said the evidence of the one witness called to testify that the report of Mr. Malcolm’s meeting was correct should be accepted, though Mr. Langstone considered that Mr. Malcolm had repudiated making the statement. The “Evening Post” had faithfully reproduced the report. This was not a libel which originated with the controllers of the “Post” in the sense that they had not picked up a statement and made comment or editorial reference defamatory to Mr. Langstone. They had just as faithfully reproduced on previous occasions the alleged slanders by Mr. Langstone about the Prime Minister. (

“This is an action by a politician, arid I suggest that a politician should be the last to bring a defamation suit, also that Mr. Langstone should he one of the last of the politicians to bring such a suit,” added Mr. O’Leary. Politicians, he said, hit hard and expected to be hit hard. They had absolute privilege on the floor of the House, and made full use of it. They should not be too sensitive or thinskinned about criticism 'in an election campaign in which one side condemned trenchantly the other till polling day settled the issue. Mr. Langstone should be one of the last to bring such ah action because of the nature of the statements made by him when he vilified and, it was submitted, slandered the Prime Minister. When, he arrived back in New Zealand he quickly used the Press to get out his version of the dispute, and this was very faithfully and fairly reported in the “Evening Post.” When a comparatively innocent statement was made about Mr. Langstone’s recall he Would not accept an expression of regret, would not say it was inadequate, and'did not complain of an inference of' misconduct till three months later. No action had been taken against Mr. Malcolm; that was reserved for the “Evening Post.” Mr. Malcolm’s subsequent statement that he had made no personal reflection on Mr. Langstone was published by the “Evening Post.” Mr. Langstone had not replied to Malcolm’s telegram of retraction or the “Post’s” letter of regret. Counsel submitted that Mr. Langstone had not wanted any settlement or expression of regret, as he had determined on an action for damages, and that governed the course he took. The suggestion that a man had been recalled was not defamatory. Il was in common usage in relation to diplomats, for whatever reasons, ’which might be divergence from the views of the Government represented. The jury, said Mr. Watson, in his address, had only one thing to consider — whether the “Evening Post” had libelled Mr. Langstone. Mr. O’Leary appeared as counsel for the defendant company, and not for the Prime Minister, who could safely be left to look out for himself. Was it nor showing an arrogant contempt for plaintiff ■ and the class to which he belonged to say that politicians should be the last to bring actions for defamation and that Mr. Langstone should be the last of the politicians so to do? Did it not suggest that politicians had no characters to protect, and no right to claim damages? Stripped of all the trimmings, the case was that defendant admitted the words were false, and no attempt was made to justify their use. It was for the jury to say whether they were defamatory. The “Post” had published a grudging, niggardly and petty reference regretting that they had used the word “recall.” His Honour summed up, and the jury retired nt 4 p.m. They returned at 4.50 p.m. with a verdict awarding plaintiff £2OO. Judgment was entered accordingly, with costs according to sealei