LAW OF LIBEL

Evening Post, Volume CXXVII, Issue 55, 7 March 1939, Page 19

LAW OF LIBEL

NEED FOR REFORM

A COMMITTEE PROMISED

BILL WITHDRAWN

(By Air Mail, from "The Post's" London Representative.)

LONDON, February 7. 9 Reconsideration of the British laws of libel was promised in the House of Commons, by Sir Donald Somervell, Attorney-General, last week, when a private members' Bill, sponsored by Sir Stanley Reed, M.P., a journalist, was debated. Sir Donald's statement secured the withdrawal of the Bill. The House was told that a committee would consider the question from a "more fundamental and more general point of view than was represented by the Bill."

The writer's point of view was described to an amused House by Mr. A. P. Herbert, M.P. He said that the Bill was a modest attempt at law reform without Involving a very material interest. It was not desirable that any part of the law of the land should fall into disrepute as that part had. It was not desirable that plaintiffs or defendants should be encouraged to waste the time of the" Courts by a species of blackmail or speculation.

"If Napoleon were addressing himself to the task of reforming the law of. libel," he added, "I think he would scrap the lot and start all over again, but Napoleon did not have to face the special difficulties of a private member on ° Friday afternoon. (Laughter.)

"If one brings in a comprehensive measure one is said to be attempting too much. If one makes a modest con-, tribution. one is said to be tinkering with the matter. The promoters have only nibbled round the most untidy fringes and have not made an assault on the whole matter."

He disagreed with many would-be reformers who desired that unless there were damages there should be

no right of action. In many cases there was a duty to bripg actions. Members might be the victims of a story which did nof damage them at the time, but might when an election came along.

The law of slander should be assimilated to the law of libel. In libel it was necessary to prove damage suffered, but in slander one had to prove not merely actual damage, such as being expelled from a club, but damage which could be measured in terms of money. "If you say any woman or beneficed clergyman is not so virtuous as he or she ought to be they can recover damages without proof of special damages," he said. "But if you say that against Mr. Montagu Norman,, the Prime Minister, or the AttorneyGen eral, he has to prove that it is bad for business. The same is true, I believe, of a retired bishop." (Laughter.) These distinctions were absolute nonsense, and arose from accidental or historical causes, or because we were too lazy to amend them. It was absurd to say that what was shouted from the housetops—that was to say, written on a postcard—was more dangerous .than what was shouted from a loud speaker at a mass meeting. There might be a little social reform in this proposal. Every day one read about some village where havoc had been wrought by gossip and whispering. We did not want every little v bit of tittle-tattle to be made the foundation of an action. MERELY ACCIDENT. j Referring to clause 1, Mr. Herbert: said authors were not a very thinskinned lot. On the contrary they were rather tough, but they had to take i great care that anything they wrote was true and right. Anything that v/as said about authors, however abusive,] was fair comment on a matter of public interest, so that they got it both ways. (Laughter.) j Clause 1 merely made a mild and just limitation of liability where there was a genuine accident. If he deliberately wrote about Mr. Smith, even though ' c wished to" be complimentary, and if his opinion was wrong and might damage Mr. Smith he (the writer) would be liable. If he wrote that Mr Smith was a bad politician 'but a good father and it turned out that Mr. Smith was not married at all jthen the writer wo.uld have to pay. I (Laughter.)

in the Artemus Jones -case, Lord Loreburn had ruled that the intentioa of the writer did not matter, and that the remedy was to abstain from defamatory words. By our extraordinary doctrine of innuendo, which was so much extended by Judges in recent years, it was impossible for a writer to be sure that his statement was free from defamatory words. Lord Loreburn's words seemed to suggest that authors might get out of it by having none but virtuous characters in their books. (Laughter 1.) Another method would be to use symbols, and to describe Mr. X as giving Mis* V a passionate kiss on the lips. (Laughter.) Even that might not succeed, for there was an actual case of a bookmaker some time ago where a dashfe signifying a blank, was substituted tof a name, and a real bookmaker named Blank brought an action for libeL (Laughter.)

"People say, why do we not us» more complicated names, like 'Port Wine' or 'bitter'? Believe it or not^ there are ten Port Wines in the London Telephone Directory. (Laughter.) There are a Japhet, a Noah, a Mars, a Venus, several Wellbeloveds, Truelove*, and Lovelies, a Mr. Herbage and a MrGrass, a Mock, a Turtle, a Virtue, and a Vice, and a Mr. Butter and Mr. Cheese. I should regard myself as guilty of negligence if I committed a libel against anyone with those names. We must take care, but what we do wonder is how we are to fulfil the law, which says that however much care you may take you cannot possibly avoid doing injury. I am just asking that the law should be sensible and wise.

"I have been greatly distressed since I have been in this House by the little love which seems to exist between our free Parliament and our free Press. The Press isr not perfect because it is free. We are not perfect because we are free. Nothing that is free is perfect. I feel that here we are— this great democratic family—two cousins always scrapping with each other.

"I have often said to my friends of the Press I wish they would sometimes, some of them—most of them do already —make more of an effort to understand us and interpret us to the people. On the other hand I do feel when a Bill comes forward which to some extent asks for serious consideration for the gentlemen of the Press we should consider it as far as we can without prejudice." >