Evening Post. FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 11, 1896. THE LAW OP LIBEL.

Evening Post, Volume LII, Issue 94, 11 September 1896, Page 4

Evening Post. FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 11, 1896. THE LAW OP LIBEL.

The difference between slander and libel is known to most people, but the distinction is fast becoming one that will not hold water much longer, and hence the introduction of a Defamation Bill into our Legislature, for it covers both under the one term of defamation. Hitherto there has been a kind of floating Judge-made, or common law, by which alone Buch offences can be tried, and it is to codify this and put it into concrete form that this Bill has been prepared. As has been said, and well said, this Bill contains "a series of propositions by which a branch of the law, full of artificial distinctions, has been rendered easily accessible to the judgment of the layman aa well as the lawyer." It stands to the credit of the late John Ballancb, who was a journalist of no mean repute, that be was the first man in thin

colony to grasp the benefits to press and public of the Act passed in Queensland in 1889 at the instance of Sir S. W. Griffith. In the session of 1890, and while the Hon. H. ,Feldwick, himself a newspaper man, was a member of the Lower House, he asked that gentleman to bring in a Defamation Bill — a copy almost of the Queensland Act. Since then Tasmania has adopted a similar measure, and with the advantages of both these Acts before them our Joint Statutes Revision Committee has at length evolved a Bill which for clearness is a model of Parliamentary Bill-drafting. Though it is possible that Macaulay's " any schoolboy " could not quite understand it, certain it is that any adult possessing a moderate amount of education cannot err therein. The unsatisfactory condition in which our New Zealand law of libel stands has for years past been placed prominently before the public in these columns, and though, unless the Government elect to take up one of John Ballance's foster-children, there is small chance of it becoming law this session, we • hail with pleasure the affirmation of the principle and the details of this Bill by the Legislative Council. It may even take eight years to pass, as did the Criminal Code before the House of Representatives would deal with it ; but, at any rate, a beginning has been made. The only objection raised to the Bill in the Legislative Council was that by the Hon. W. Downie Stewabt — that it would enable second and third class papers to take advantage of a " fair report " to defame a man's character after collusion with some one put up on a platform at a publio meeting for the purpose. As the Hon. Mr. MacGeegor pointed out, this is the law of England at the present time. Mr. Stbwaet did not attempt to show, nor do we think it exists other than as a bogey, that tkis privilege has led to any abuse of the law in England. But it must not be overlooked that the Bill provides that it shall be evidence of a want of good faith if the proprietor, publisher, or editor has been requested to publish a reasonable letter or statement by way of contradiction or explanation of the defamatory matter, and has refused or neglected to publish the same. Fortunately, however, for us in New Zealand there are no papers, that we know of, contemptible enough to descend to such tactics, and consequently there ia no need to block a useful measure for so hypothetical a case. Space will not allow us to enter into all the provisions of the Bill, but one or two points may be touched on. Words are actionable which impute unchastity or adultery to any woman or girl ; an imputation concerning a dead person which will injure the reputation of a relative living, comes within its scope ; fair comment on the public conduct of public men, or public officers, and on the proceedings in any Court on a case that has been decided is allowed; and truth is a good defence to an action for defamation, and it is not necessary that it should be shown that_the publication is for the public benefit. Not the least important clause, so far as newspapers are concerned, is that which deals with the vexed question of libel actions brought against a paper by " men of straw." For years the Post has pointed out the unfairness of the law as it stands at present. Under this Bill, if a Judge in chambers is satisfied that .the plaintiff is an undischarged "bankrupt, or has no visible means of paying the costs of the defendant should a verdict not be found for the plaintiff, he ma/ make an"order staying all proceedings in the action unless within a given time plaintiff gives full security for the defendant's costs- up to £35. Though this does not go so far as, legitimately, we have a right to expect, still it is an advance on the present condition of things, and as such is. welcomed. It may be argued that this Defamation Bill is one which interests the Fourth Estate only. Let us take it at that, and ask in reply whom doa« the Fourth Estate interest ? Is it not for the public good that reports of publio meetings should be published without the fear of libel resting on the paper that publishes the matter in good faith ? Is it not more satisfactory to the public generally that they should know how far a paper can go, and how far any individual may go, than to have an ill-defined Judge -made law governingall public utterances and writings ? Is it not satisfactory to know that no protection is given to those who abuse their privilege, whether on the platform or through the press ? The colony owes a debt of gratitude to the Hon. John Ballance for having left such a legacy as the Defamation Bill. It is not a travesty, such as the Libel Bill introduced by the Minister for Lands two sessions ago; it does not go as far as we would like to see it go ; but at any rate it is a codification of the law respecting defamation, which is a thing to be desired, and the making of a code on such a subject is a matter of very great difficulty. For these reasons we thank the Hon. Mr. Felpwick for looking after journalistic interests, and the Statutes Revision Committee for the improvements it made on the Bill as originally brought down.