FAIR OR UNFAIR?

Evening Post, Volume CXIII, Issue 100, 30 April 1927, Page 10

FAIR OR UNFAIR?

QUESTION OF COMMENT

NEWSPAPER SUED

THE LAW STATED

During the hearing of the case in | which Cyrus J. R. Wiliams, engineer to the I<yttelton Harbour Board, claimed £1000 from the ' Christchnrch ! "Press" Co., Ltd., on. the ground that two letters appearing in the "Press" criticising the policy of the board con--tamed statements that wero libellous, the question ; arose as to what comstitutcd fair comment. Addressing the jury on behalf of the defendant company, Mr. M. Myers, K.C., said that the real question, the. 1, jury would have to decide was the question a3 to whether, or not, the letters in question were fair comment, or fair as far as-the .plaintiff was concerned.Counsel said that the jury could start their consideration. of the case with the hypothesis that all the statements complained of by the plaintiff so far as they were material to their consideration were statements not of fact, but of opinion—that was to say, matters of comment. After reviewing the evidence at some length, Mr. Myei^ said that a man could not claim damages because his own vanity was wounded; that was not the principle on'which damages could be claimed for libel, nor waa it the basis of an action for libel. It was not what the law of libel dealt with at all. As for this fiTst letter he ventured to put it to them that it was not defamatory of Mi. Williams—never was intended to Tje, and was not. It was a criticism, and not too harsh a criticism when they considered the circumstances of the policy and actions of the board. By no stretch of the imagination couM it be regarded as defamatory of Mi. Wiliams. It was fair comment and should be so held by them. . AN ILLUSTRATION. He would give them an illustration, very much stronger in Mr. Williams's | favour • than the illustration they got from consideration of the present case. Suppose a person .walking along a street with another entered a new building and, looking around, said that the building was badly designed oar badly constructed. That would be just as much a reflection on the architect or tho builder as anything in the letters could possibly be twisted into being a reflection on Mr. Williams. Yet such a statement would not be defamatory, or, if defamatory, would be perfectiy fair commerit becauso it merely expressed an opinion. It would cease to be fair comment only if it could be shown that it was actuated by malice —by somo improper motive, such as illwill, or something of that sari. Siipposo a man had said that the building was so badly designed ,or constricted that the mau who constructed or designed it should, construct or design [ another, and then die. Some of them had given utterance to something of tho kind in respect of a picture or a building. Such a statement anyone was entitled to make if it was, his opinion, and the builder or painter would be very ill-advised—as ho had put it to them the day before tliat the plaintiff had been ill-advised—to bring an action for something which he could not complain of as a wrong.FBEEDOM OF SPEECH. Concluding his address, Mr. Myerssaid that ho wanted to' emphjisisd that in this case the principle of freedom'of speech was being attacked. ,That was what this case meant, and they should mako no error about it —not only the freedom of the Press, but their freedom, and his freedom, and the freedom of every citizen of this country. Positively . and confidently ho ventured to say that if Mr. Williams received a verdict in his favour, at their hands, no paper would dare express its opinions about the administration of a local body, or of a Government because inevitably such criticism might be held, indirectly, to involve criticism of some officer, engineer, or other technical officor of a local body, or of a Government, as the case might be. Every citizen was in the same position beeauso in this respect thero was no difference between the law of libel and the law-.! of slander. If they could find in those lotters any statement which reflected on Mr. Williams because he happened to be the engineer who did the works, then their verdict would aeeessarily imply that, what was said about him was said about.him in regard to his profession and position as engineer. Consequently, the position would be precisely tho same as if the words were spoken, instead of written words. «"That was why he said that if Mr. Williams was entitled to a verdict then no one of them—let alone a newspaper-—dared criticise the actions of a local body or a Government, because anyone who did so would be liable-to be brought before, the Court in an action for damages. That was the position, and there was no use mincing matters. WAS IT FAIR? In his address on behalf of the plaintiff, Mr. M. JV Grcsson said that if the jury were satisfied that it was a matter of comment, they' had to satisfy themselves whether it was fair. They could never ascertain whether the comment was fair until,' they had ascertained whether it. was based on fact. It was not fair comment if the fact upon which it was based was untrue. Did the articles reflect on the-competence of plaintiff as an engineer? Did tho fact establish that the comment was true and was it fair? Was it fair.to have stated that if a private contractor had built the wall in the samo manner as that of plaintiff, it would have ruined him? Counsel said he' had no intention of dealing with any sidelights, but to confine himself to' the sting, the letter in which it was stated that the wall was built in a primitive, haphazard, and costly manner, which would have ruined a private contractor. Mr. Gresson read a definition of a defamatory statement. Obviously from this definition, he said, the statement made must be defamatory. The real question the jury would have to decide was whether it'was fair comment, and based on true facts. His learned friend and himself had met previously on a number of occasions during the. past few years. Ho had found the opposing counsel a master of camouflage. Mt. Myers: '-'That's libel," Mr. Gressons "Luckily we are privileged. '" Counsel for the other side had evaded several points, and he had noted down four separate red herrings which he had drawn across the trail. The first was that plaintiff had suggested that he controlled the policy of tho Harbour Board; the second that he had originally claimed £.7000 and now claimed only £1000; tho third that he had estimated the coat of tho reclamation wall at £29,000, and it had coat £66,000; the fourth that if the plaintiff succeeded, no newspaper would be safe. Ho had never he? d an action against a newspaper in which this argument was not brought forward. JUDGE'S COMMENTS. Summing up, Mr. Justice Adams said that the first point the jury had to consider was the matter of discussing a subject of public interest. Thore was a common rule touching such a caße, and it differed from an action whero thero was no question of public interest concernod. Ho quoted authorities to show that no action, could, lie if the .defend-

ants could prove that the words complained of were a fair comment on a matter of public interest. It was, he said, the right of anyone to comment on such a matter, provided his facts were correct; and he was entitled to criticise or comment on the actions of public servants acting in such a capacity as plaintiff in the present action. There was the question of the extent to which it was right to go in exercising the right of comment. Such comment might be defamatory without being actionable, and no man could be sued for damages for telling the truth I about anyone.* A man was not bound Ito prove his opinion up to the hilt. It would place an impossilje burden on him to do so. There were, however, certain limits to bo considered. FULL LATITUDE. In a case reaching the stage of the one before the Court, the question of liability depended on whether the comment had been fair. This had agitated the minds of Judges for a long time. His Honour quoted authorities to show that nothing was more important than that fair and full latitude of discussion should'be allowed to writers upon any public matter, whether it be the conduct of public men, or the proceedings in Courts of Justice, or in Parliament, or the publication of a scheme or a literary work. But it was always left to a jury to say whether the publication had gone beyond the limits of a fair comment on the subject matter discussed. A writer was not entitled to overstep those limits and impute base and sordid motives not. warranted by the facts. Dealing with a case bearing on the present one, his Honour quoted an authority, who. asked: Would any fair, man, however prejudiced he might be, however exaggerated •or obstinate his views, have said that which a certain criticism had said of the work criticised? If it went beyond that the jury must find for the plaintiff; if they were not satisfied that it did, then it fell within tho allowed limit, and there was no'libel at all. Criticism, continued his Honour, must be honest and not merely malicious. The liberty of a man depended largely ou the extent to which freedom of speech was allowed. The jury had to decide whether or not tho statements made departed from tho truth to make it thought that they were written from some improper motive and were therefore unfair. The jury would have to determine the words were defamatory, not in the general sense, but to the plaintiff. The jury found that thecomment had been fair, and judgment was given for the defendant company. ■>