THE LIBEL LAW.

Manawatu Standard, Volume XLI, Issue 9360, 8 November 1910, Page 5

THE LIBEL LAW.

THE GOVERNMENT PROPOSAL. IBy Ovb Parliamentary Repobteb.)

WELLINGTON, Nov. 7.

The Libel Act Amendment Bill, introduced by Governor's Message this evening, contains some important proposals on a subject which has been before the legislature in various forms for many years past. It provides that in any action or prosecution for a defamatory iibel it may be pleaded, in the absence of proof of malice ,) a fair and accurate report of the proceedings of either House of Parliament or: of any committee thereof ; (b) a fair and accurate report of the proceedings of any. court of justice, whether in New Zealand or elsewhere, and whether those proceedings are preliminary, interlocutory, or final, and whether in open court or not, or of the result of any such proceedings; (c) a fair and accurate report of the proceedings in any enquiry ' Held under the authority of the Governor-in-Council, or of proof of male, (a) a' fair and accurate report made by the person by whom the enquiry was held; (d) a. fair and- accurate report of the proceedings of any local authority or of any body of persons constituted . under the -provisions of any Act for the discharge of 'public functions, or of a committee of any such local authority or body ""so far as the report relates to matters of local concern, and the. publication thereof is for the public benefit; (e) a fair and accurate report of the acts and proceedings of. the Executive Government or of any department or officer thereof so far as the publication of such report is _ authorised or requested by any Minister of the Crown. Common law rights are not affected by the Bill. In regard to reports of local : bodies, it is laid down that refusal without reasonable justification 'to publish an explanation or contradiction of defamatory matter will exclude the defence of privilege. Provision is also made that when a libel action has been begun against one newspaper no action in respect of the same alleged libel can be begun against- | another newspaper after ten days from the date of the original action. When two or more actions have been commenced by the same person in regard to the publication of the same matter m different newspapers, the. plaintiff _ must, as soon as practicable, give notice of the same to the other defendants, so as to enable each defendant to make application for the consideration of the actions. If the plaintiff does not give such notice the court may, on the application of * the defendant, dismiss or stay-, the action. As a natural corollary the Supreme Court is given power to consolidate actions on. the application of the defendants. In . such a consolidated action the judge or jury will have to assess the whole amount of the damages (if any) in one sum, but a separate verdict will be given for or against each defendant. If a verdict is given against the defendants in more than one of the consolidated actions the - judge or jury will apportion the amount of the damages between the several defendants. The fact that; in an action for defamation the defendant proves he made or offered a public apology may be proved in mitigation of damages. Tne defendant may also prove in mitigation of damages that the plaintiff has already recovered or brought an action for or received or agreed to receive compensation from other persons for the publication of the. same defamatory matter. When a trial , takes place for the publication of defamatory * matter in aoy book or printed document, or in any newspaper, any printed statement contained in that book or document or newspaper published or printed by or for the defendant will, be regarded as prima facie evidence of the truth oi that statement. . . A magistrate, in hearing a charge or the publication of a defamatory libel, is empowered to receive evidence as to the publication being for the public benefit, and as to the truth of the statement, and as to any other evidence which may be given by way of defence, and if he is of opinion that there is a_ strong or probable assumption that a jury would acquit the defendant the magistrate may dismiss the case. The above provision is also made to_ apply to a case ot criminal defamation.