DEFAMATORY LIBEL

Evening Star, Issue 14529, 3 December 1910, Page 13

DEFAMATORY LIBEL

AN IMPORTANT AMENDMENT

TO PROTECT PUBLIC MEN

[From Our Parliamentary Reporter.] WELLINGTON, December 3. In the course of his speech on the second reading of the Libel Bill in the Legislative Council yesterday, Tho Attorney-General (Hon. Dr Findlay) said; Every now and then the pnbli c sense of decency and fair play in tins country is outraged by the production, publication, and widespread .circulation of some foul, false, and blackguardly pamphlet against mo cluirack— of prominent men, especially wc-o arc in public life. Tho publisher is invariably some worthless, if not criminal, creature without any lawful means of support, who ekes out a living by selling on tho streets or elsewhere his defamatory production. His purpose is never public interests or public benefit; his purpose is invariably to put cash in his own pocket by means that arc base and evil. He is a man who is a thousand tunes worse, making a living in such a May, than the idle vagabond whom, under the law as it is to-day, we have no hesitation in punishing, and in punishing by summary proceedings before a magistrate.' If a man is shown to bo an idle vagabond in the methods by which he obtains his living, there is no question about tho liberty .‘,f the subject. He may bo brought before a magistrate, his case may be inquired into, and he may be dealt with (hero and then. Unfortunately, sir, (ho Jaw as it stands to-day in Now Zealand affords no effective protection against and no effective means of dealing with these defaming ruffians. Now, I have drafted a clause, and I submittwl it yesterday to the Prime .Minister, tor insertion in this Bill when it was before another place, and I impressed upon •Sir Joseph Ward that it was his duty to have it inserted in this Bill. The Prime Minister, however, felt that as he is the one who has suffered more than anv other man in the country from mercenary defamation, it might be suggested under the circumstances that he was responsible for this clause, and so lie declined to insert it. Now, I respect, as everyone present will respect, the sense of delicacy which the Prime Minister evinced in connection with this refusal, but I feel it is tho duty of Parliament, it is the duty of this Council, to see that public” men, including the Prime Minister of the day, whoever he may happen to be, are fairly protected from this kind of foul attack and brutal persecution, and although I have in no way consulted the Cabinet about this, I am going to ask the Council to insert this clause in this Bill, so that we may afford public men some reasonable measure of protection against tho methods —the debased methods —of these vilifiers who spring up every now and then even in New Zealand. The clause I propose I do not believe any fairminded man or woman in New Zealand will object to, and I feel certain tho Council will recognise the fairness of wluit I suggest. I am confident that if we insert this clause and send it to another place neither political party in the House of Representatives will demur to making it the law of the country. What I propose is as follows: (1) Tho indictable offence of publishing a defamatory libel or of criminal defamation within the meaning of the Crimes Act, 1908, shall also bo an offence punishable on summary conviction before a magistrate by a tine of £IOO or by imprisonment for three months. (21 In any such summary proceedings it shall be a good defence that tho defamatory matter published by tho defendant was true, and that the publication thereof was for the public benefit, but no evidence of the truth of such matter shall bo admissible until and unless the de-

fendant proves that, assuming the matter so published to be true, the publication thereof was for the public benefit. (3) An information for any offence punishable on summary conviction under this section shall be taken and hoard before a magistrate only, and no such prosecution shall be commenced without the order of a magistrate, and notice of the intention to apply for such an order shall be given to the defendant, who shall have an opportunity of being heard against the application. The Hon. Mr Beehan: This would apply to a publication we have in Auckland. The Hon. Dr Findlay ; It would apply to any continued publication of a criminal libel. Let me very shortly say how the law stands in this country to-day in criminal libel. The defence, before it can succeed, must prove two things: it must prove, first, the truth of the allegations; and secondly, it must prove that the mutter published was for the public benefit. Now, what is being done as a rule in these cases is this: Some worthless fellow, who has no money or character, and who cannot therefore be punished through his pocket, begins his defence by first ot all endeavoring to bespatter the plaintiff by going through an attempt at justification, and says that lie will prove publication for the public benefit later on. In this way he gets out all ho possibly can in the. way of vilification during the hearing of that blanch of the defence, and then, when ho has done all the harm fie can, lets in’s case go to the jury. The only change in the law 1 am suggesting is that the order in ■which the defence should he taken shaft 1m prescribed by law, and that these m_,i should, first he railed upon to show that the defamation they have published has been published for the public benefit, and that after they have done that, and only after they have done that, they may go on to prove its tiulli, ami if they then prove its truth, so escape. ,lu all these cases this kind of brutal attack made upon a public character is not published for the public benefit; it is simply blackmail, and I know that sums of money have been demanded in connection with a matter which has created some stir lately. I know that sums of money were demanded for the total issue of the pamphlet, but, like a man, he who was concerned refused to pay it. That i;s tho kind of thing we have to protect our public men from. So lung as any man in Mew Zealand publishes anything for the public benefit, he can go on free as air; but if he is going to act the part of a vile assassin of a man's reputation, then his business as a vile assassin of character will he very seriously interfered with by tho clause which I have drawn. 1 have given to the drafting of the clause as much care us 1 possibly could, for I wanted to check that evil, and I ask the Council to pass it now hr the hope that it will have an equally easy passage in another place, and that it will afford at least some measure of protection to men who are trying to do their duty to this country.

The Hon. Mr Carncioss said ho considered that the I!ill would allord a measure >{ protection to newspapers which they lad not enjoyed in the past. He welcomed the measure as an iustalment of justice to the newspaper profession, and thought it would not bo many years before its scope would be extended. In his opinion the Attorney-General had done the right thing in bringing in the amendment he had outlined.

The Hon. Mr Jenkinson expressed the opinion that the amendment had given more pleasure to the Council than anything they had had for weeks. The Council were pretty well conversant with the filthy pamphlet, and he did not want to say very much about it, as it had already been much advertised. The production arose from a cesspool of a mind, and erected a structure of filth and mire. There was no sense of justice or cleanliness in the production, which was simply an attempt to destroy a public man. Almost eveiy man in New Zealand would be most anxious to see such a clause put on the Statute Book as the Attorney-General suggested. The Hon. Mr Loughnan expressed his hearty approval of the Bill. No map could object to the clause proposed by Dr Findlay. It was aimed at scoundrels only. The Hon. W. Beehan drew attention to Hie most scurrilous publication to be found in the Assembly Library, “run" by the same man who was responsible for the obnoxious pamphlet. It was a low, coarso attack.

The Attorney-General: The most scurrilous thing I ever read. Tho Hon. Mr Jenkinson: They certainly ought not to take it into the Assembly Library. You should give him a horsewhipping. The Hon. Mr Bcehan: I believe that the poor man’s mad. No man is now safe from his vile mind, but he’ll go to gaol and come out as a martyr. Tho Attorney-General: Don’t you believe it. He would not care to go to gaol. Mr Bcehan: I don't think, when you are dealing with men of the Black species, that tho penalty is nearly heavy enough. My own opinion is that such a man should bo deported. What right has a Roumanian like Black to come here and persistently defame our public men? In Germany they would not permit such things for a single day. The clause ought to be made a real terror to evildoers of the Black stamp. The Hon. J. Barr resented tho imputation Unit tho papw in question in any way represented Labor. Every decent Labor man in the colony, though sometimes opposed to tho Government, repudiated the vile attack on the I’limo Minister. They wanted fair and clean fighting, to dear to tho British heart. It was men of the secondary or merchant class whom he had heard speak approvingly of such a vile pamphlet, and who supported its publisher. The latter was only a willing tool in the hands of others. He congratulated the Attorney-General on the introduction of means of putting a stop to tho publication of such vile literature. Tm Hon. Air Like, lest his silence should bo misunderstood, wished to say that ho had never heard one speak ap proviugly of a pamphlet which should have been dealt with at its inception. The Hon. H. F. Wigram spoko in similar terms. The Attorney-General .said the reception of the clause, which he moved on his own responsibility, encouraged him hugely. Fill Joseph Ward had refused to allow it to be inserted when the Bill ivas before another place, and ; t had never boon submitted to Cabinet. Mr Soddon and Sir John Hall in their lay bad been subjected to similar vilificat'on and it was high time that steps were taken to stomp out infamous attacks on the public men of the Dominion. The Bill passed through committee unamended, and was read a third lime. When the Libel Bill was returned to tho House, Tho Hon. J. A. Millar explained that when certain matters were referred to in the House recently it was stated that if a clause were introduced to meet the case it would bo passed unanimously. Under the existing law a defendant had to prove t.vc things—firstly, the truth of the statement, and, secondly, that they were for the public benefit. It was open to a defendant to attempt to prove either of these defences first. As a rule tho attempt was made to prove the truth first, and then when a defendant had thrown as much mud as possible lie sometimes did not go any • Hither. Now it was proposed that a defendant should be compelled to prove that the matter was for the public benefit. It lie failed ho was guilty of defamatoiy libel. If ho wero able to prove that it was in the public interest, ’hen nc would have to prove the truth of the statement. Before one could bring an action one mint submit the matter to a magistrate. . This was a fair way to protect a man against those who had nothing to lose by defam iug him. Mr Alarsoy said he sympathised with tho object of the clause, but thought it would place too much power in the hands of the magistrates. The magistrates '''ere not independent in tho sumo way as the .Supreme Court Judges, and therefore the people had less confidence in them. He thought tho amendment ehofiid be disagreed with so that a conference conbl be held and Supreme Court Judges substituted for magistrates. He would then iiko the clause to go further, and apply to anybody who attempted to identify decent men with a defamatory libel. The new clause was agreed to. Tho ‘ Dominion ’ goes bald-headed for Dr Findlay’s addition to tho Libel Bill. It characterises as monstrous tho venture on tho part of the Government to Csesar-j.-m. After insinuating that magistrates are not likely to safeguard individual liberty, because they are dependent on the goodwill of tho party in power, tho writer ‘-ays: “ ‘'licit poisoning of the law can oidv benefit special persons in special cases, li will enable some persons to ruin their critics and dorse the door against the proof of truth of any statement concerning them. A more dangerous law was never heard of.” The same paper, in criticising the AttorneyGeneral’s speech in moving the new clause, savs : “ Irishmen who were determined to light like devils for conciliation are outdated. Cannot tho Attorney-General get rid of his ill-luck by turning round three limrs or something?’’