QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume 80, 29 August 1945, Page 5

QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE

MINISTER WITHDRAWS LIBEL SUIT Canberra, August 28. The Minister of Information, Mr Calwell, announced that he had withdrawn his suit against Brian Penton, editor of the Sydney “Daily Telegraph,” claiming £25.000 damages for alleged libel. In a statement. Mr Calwell said he had taken this course because Mr Penton had taken shelter behind privilege to escape from the consequences of the challenge the “Telegraph” had thrown out but was afraid to stand by. Mr Justice Dixon in the preliminary hearing ruled that defendant could not set up privilege, but a majority of the judges of the High Court overruled Mr Justice Dixon and held that defendant was entitled to plead privilege. Mr Calwell in his statement says; “I have not got behind me the wealth of a large corporation such as Consolidated Press Limited tthe proprietors of tha ‘Telegraph’]. Already, the costs ara heavy, and I have not the means to appeal to the Privy Council against a decision which my lawyers advise me is wrong. "I sought to have determined in a court of law only the simple question of the truth or falsity of what the ‘Daily Telegraph’ challenged me to do. Defendant’s action in relying on privilege has defeated a trial on that simple issue. Because defendant has taken shelter fiom the consequerces of the challenge the "Daily Telegraph’ threw out but is afraid to stand by. the only course open to me is to discontinue the case.” Last November the “Daily Telegraph,” commenting on a debate in the House of Representatives, said in an editorial: “This is not the first time we have called Mr Calwell a liar. Unfortunately his lies are always spoken under the privilege of Parliament, where* he is protected from •he law. We invited Mr Calwell to take action against us. This statement should be worth £IO.OOO at least—if a Court will give him a verdict.” In a debate Mr Calwell had spoken of his action in suppressing Sydney newspapers after they fcad defied a censor- | ship instruction which they claimed to Ibe unjustifiable. Mr Calwell said that i two members of the High Court “threw away their wigs and barracked for the ) Press” when they allowed an appeal by the newspapers. < He added: “The officers of my department and myself had no other motive at any time during the dispute than to protect the nation against a number of people in the Press world of Sydney whose inching desire is to make money. "They were content to jeopardise the ii.terests of the ration in order to write stqries they thought the public should be permitted to read. . . . There are more fifth columnists on the reportial. managerial, and editorial sides of the newspapers than in any other section of this country.” MR PENTON’S REPLY

(Rec. 12.40 p.m.) Sydney. This Dav Replying to Mr Calwell’s statement Mr Brian Penton says in part that the defence of privilege was not raised to checkmate action, but to throw on *Mr Calwell the onus of proving that the statements he made in Parliament were true. “Mr Calwell’s excuse for evading tnis action is typical. ’ continued Mr Penton. "His pathetic complaint that ! 1 chose to defend myself with quali- | tied privilege extended by law to a man I who answers slanderous attacks upon : himself will amuse the public, which ! has become accustomed to Mr Calwell’s j use of absolute Parliamentary privilege to blackguard generally without the remotest care for facts every individual and institution he does not like. The statements Mr Calwell made in Parliament, bitterly critical of the organisation I work for and of its executive heads, were, we said, deliberately false and the plea of privilege would have obliged Mr Calwell to go into the witness-box and produce evidence to support his statements. If he had been able to do so our plea of privilege would have collapsed and he would have teen assured of heavy damages. We pleaded justification as well as qualified privilege. Under the plea of justification, we would have been obliged to prove certain facts. If we had failed. th e damages would have been aggravated.’