The Nelson Evening Mail. FRIDAY, DECEMBER 21, 1906. NEWSPAPER LIBEL LAWS. DIFFERENCES BETWEEN BRITAIN AND AUSTRALASIA.

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume XLI, Issue 317, 21 December 1906, Page 2

The Nelson Evening Mail. FRIDAY, DECEMBER 21, 1906. NEWSPAPER LIBEL LAWS. DIFFERENCES BETWEEN BRITAIN AND AUSTRALASIA.

IN a libel Action fe e for,o £he New South Y\ales Supreme Court recfnfly attention w« called to the difference' Tefeen law of England and that of the State in respect o£ libel and slander. As the differentiation referred to is practically the same in relation to the law in JMew Zealand compared with "Lord Glenesk's Act in the United. Kingdom a review of the contrast may prove of interest to the general reader. <A witness,ff.ffe Ifrice v. Robinson case said he desired fo jLftW newspapers placed on the same footing aj= ei^ T litigants with TSgaia to actions ieiam&op. At pressnfc ne»v«paper^ are Djn^WgKwy better footing U».a» pjfcer JabeJ or sJander litigants inqimucb 8g j w 'an 'action against a newspaper the defence p( publication without malice or negligence and prompt apology on discovery of a mistake is open with a view to mitigation of damages. But in all other material respects a newspaper is no more prfv^eged than a member of the general $u^c-

* * t .»,' • The principal cause of complaint against Australasian libel law asnerajly is that, apart from the {iaouitjy 'af blackmailing actions against newspaper^, our Acts of Parliament aie behind the English law with regard to the publication of reports of public meetings and of meetings of public bodies. In this respect, again, newspapers are on the

same footing as individuals ; that is to • say, such reports must not be publish- , ed if they eonUiin defamatory matter. | In England the legislature 25 years ago j saw that the public interest was sacrificed by reason of the fact that newspapers were hampered in . reporting the proceedings at meetings as to which it greatly concerned the public to havo information. The law here and in Australia now extant, and one which was extant in England till 1881 is, roundly speaking, as follows: — A newspaper may- report the proceedings of a Court of Justice or those in Parliament. The right to report is not taken away by the fact that what was said in the course of the proceedings reflects strongly on the character, credit, and reputation of some inoffensive citizen. Ncr does it make any difference in this respect that the charges made are absolutely unfounded. Only in two cases will such a publication be actionable. The first is whece .the publication is made, not from a desire to convey information to the public, but from a desire to injure the person whose character has been assailed ; and the other is where the report is not a fair and accurate one. i The issue of -malice is peculiar, and often 9. hard one to define. Mr Blake Odgers, K.C., the great British authority on the law of libel, puts a case 1 to show how malice may be proved or I shown under- the British law, even under conditions where a newspaper report may appear to an editor to b"e~ fully privileged, thus: — A Police Couit reporter is in Court, when his hated rival for the 'hand of a wealthy widow is .charged with being drunk and disorderly. He sends along the report to his newspaper for the deliberate purpose of spoiling his rival's chances. In this case the reporter would be liable to an action, though the newspaper proprietors would not, assuming that they knew, nothing of the motives actuating the reporter — unless the proprietors were a corporation, when, perhaps, the Citizens' Life Assurance Co. v. Brown would apply. On the question of fairness and accuracy, in England a report would not be privileged if, for instance, it set out all matter prejudicial to a plaintiff and left out everything in his favour. Even if it could be shown that tho part in favour of the plaintiff was left out of the report by accident and without apparent malice, there would be no defence except in mitigation of. dumages.

• • • • •

TTnder th libel laws of Australasia, however, almost without exception unless the Queensland law be excluded from the category, a newspaper is not privileged in any defined way. If a speaker at a meeting make charges of personal misconduct against anyone, a newspaper reports that portion of the speech at its own risk. To be precise, it would be no defence in an action for libel to show that the publication was a fair report of what occurred at a public meeting. It may be explained that this very issue led to the appointment of a Commission in England in 1879 to define the liability of newspapers for accurate reports. The "Manchester Courier" published a report of a meeting of the Board of Guardians wherein speakers had complained that a doctor had delayed attending a patient when called and that the patient had died. It was also complained that delay in attendance had occurred on previous occasions, and this also was reported. The doctor (Dr. Purcell) proved later that there was no foundation for the allegations, and brought suit against the •'Manchester Courier." The defence was that ''the defendants are public journalists, and tlie said words jvere printed and published by them as such public journalists in a public journal, bona-fide, without malice, and for the public benefit, and not otherwise, and were and are a correct, fair, impartial, and honest report and account of proceedings of public interest and concern " U was held that these facts established no defence. Had the charges been founded In fact, no doubt the defendant would have succeeded, for he r : nv}d then have shown that the publication was true, and for the public benefit. But he rested his defence on the ground that his report was an accurate report of tha proceedings at the meeting, and thaj, therefore, it, was immaterial whether .the charges were true or false.

• •

"Here," Bays Mr Odgers, "was a report whirl) waß admitted to bp peppiafe, of a discussion that had taken place an a matter of public interest, at a meeting of a public body, and yet the proprietor of the newspaper must pay damages, because the editor had not cut out certain passagOS which, in the opinion of the Court, should net h*va been published. Proprietors of new^papsra a|y.avs cpntend, as Mr Sowler did in this va*y case, that, in the hurry of setting up type for a daily paper, it is practically hnpoasjbje for the editor to read through the copy and. »y«6h eac n wpr ° it contains; that he cannot be gxpgcfed to edit the report of a public meeting and cut out passages which relate to matters of public interest, so as to make the report iKCompjpte ; that so long as the meeting is one that ought (to be reported, and the report printed Is aewi; rate, nothing more can be required." This case led to the appointment in 1879 ofagelocf. committee of £he House of Commons. The committee reported that 'the balance of iv.nvonleiice requires that further protection should he given in surf) repoi(.s." • * # ♦ p In accordance with t!u> Ferpmmgndation of the Commission an Alt was passed purporting to cive protection to newspapers (1881). But so many restrictions were jmposed that the benefits were not nearly &e RPpat as \.\\ey appeared to be at ftret eight. Again th,s Manchester "Courier" stood out as"champion of the press. At a public election meeting, held at Manchester in October, 1885, one of the speakers made serious charges against a Mr Ppnkhurst. The "Manchester Courier," relying pn. the Act of 1881, published a full report of the speech, defamatory matter and oilNow the Act of 1881 had made such a report privileged if the publication of "{jie matter complained of" was for the' pttUic benefit. It did not exempt the newspaper irow merely because it was for {he public benefit to have an account of the meeting. A libel action followed (Pankhurst v. Sowjej>J j^d it was .held that the newspaper had no'doleiuMi, as'W public benefit'derjved from puMicat»o^ jVas proved. Again the "Courier . sougiii'an 'ejjjiendtnqn!, pf (foe fajy, and succeeded in gejtting relief in tfce form of a njeasure providing (section i) ti,a{, fijji reports of judicial proceedings in newspai)jers uuhKshod contemporaneously shall be privileged. Considering that such reports were privileged aj pofflfflPrt jaw, whether published cpgtenjporaflisQusjjr ' or not, or whether (n a DSWspapgr or npt this section does not seem the hejgbj- o) legislative wißdom. By section 4i re ports of public meetings end (ejecept when closed to the press) meetings of vestries, town councils, school boards, etc., u<i privileged if not published maliciously. Btit this was not to sanction the publication of blasphemous or indecent matter. There is also a proviso tfjat the newspaper proprietor must, if bo fequßsled by the person aggrieved, publish any fttaspflajjjp letter such person desires to have' published by way of explanation or contradiction. It uliould be noted, however, that the English law still contains the proviso that publication of defamatory fijatter must itself be of public concern • • • • •

It has been objected to this measure that any person who conducts a scurrilous and blackmailing paper would be enabled to carry on his nefarious operations with impunity. He has Qi/ty jto .become a member of a vestry, ioy/if coui^efi, or {similar body, and at the meetings' juste glanderous statements which would be privileged so far as the meeting is concerned, gg tfce# reports himself in full In his newspaper and gets the benefit of the Act, To this there are three answers. First, no such case has occurred during the 25 years' ixistence of this legislation in England. Second, such conduct would be strong evidence of malice so as to destroy the jjipviie^. Third, the danger is very mucji .lessened Xy the fact that the dejfen.dant ipuit sliSjv 1 tfiat «.ygry word was a? public concern. Ju cpncjutiioij, the (Si-sat autfjority on Ijbel a^v, lUr Blake OdKers, K,t'., says: ''■fhe (Britjsii) Act of 1888 is a useful and practical measure, for which it« fiamei', tord O|ene«k, deserves the thanks of all journalists and the congratulations of the public "

• • « * •

Australasian journalism asks no more, and it will be satisfied with no less, iUiy the British law of libel provides in the way of .protection for British newspapers. At present limitations are not only hampering; tij'e,V a/<? 40 ill-defined that a newspaper editor niSy "fall in" though he may have as a con-

genital iristinct the power of detecting j a libel actionable.at law. If the Legis- | latures cannot give the full measure of protection afforded in the United Kingdom, at least the definition may be so made as to enable newspaper editors to cxeiQise that inborn or acquired sense o] instinct that enables them to steer their barks free from the rock of libel. It is not asked that newspapers should be given license to do that which the "man in the street" is afraid to do owing to wholesome restrictive laws. All that is demanded is that a free press should be free as organs of public opinion in more than the name.