PROTECTION OF PUBLIC MEN

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXII, Issue 7301, 3 December 1910, Page 5

PROTECTION OF PUBLIC MEN

CRIMINAL DEFAMATION STRINGENT NEW CLAUSE INSERTED IN LIBEL BILL POLITICAL POISONERS “1 am going to move an amendment to tliis Bill on a matter which. of vital importance to ©very public man in the country/' said the Attorney-Gen-eral, tho Hon. Br. Findlay, when moving the second reading of tho Law of Libel Amendment Bill in the Legislative Council yesterday, and' indicating his intention to introduce a provision designed to meet such cases a© the scuirilous pamphlet recently published in Auckland and discussed in the House on Wednesday PUBLIC DECENCY OUTRAGED,.

Dx. Findlay remarked that every now and then- the public sens© of decency and fair play was outraged by the production and widespread publication of some vile, false and blackguardly pamphlet directed against the character of; prominent men, especially of those in public life; The publisher was invariably some worthless, if not criminal, creature who eked out his living by the sale on the streets or elsewhere of hia defamatory productions. : His purpose was never public interest or benefit, but to put money into his own pocket by moans of base attacks upon decent men and women. Such a man, ’ making • a living in such a way, was worse than tho idle vagabond who they now had no hesitation in punishing. (Heari hear.) If a man was shown to be an idle vagabond there w r as no question about -"tho liberty of tho subject/* but unfortunately the law at present afforded no effective means of dealing with these defamatory ruffians. .

TO MEET THE'CASE. : He had drafted, a clause to meet the case, aud submitted'it to the Prime Minister for insertion in the Bill- when it was before the House. Ho had impressed upon Sir Joseph Ward that it was his duty to have it put in, but the Prime Minister felt that as ho:had suffered more than any other man'in the country from this kind of defamation,, the suggestion -might be made that he ■ was responsible for the clause. Sir Joseph had therefore declined to insert it in tho House. _ But while respecting the sense of delifcacy that the Prime Minister, evinced in connection with this matter, ho (Dr. Findlay) felt that it was a duty to Parliament to see that public men,'including the Prime Minister (whoever he might be) were protected from this kind of false and brutal persecution. (Hear, hoar.) He had not even consulted-Cab-inet but was going to ask the Council to put the clause in the Bill, and so give public men some protection against the false vilifiers who sprang up every now and then. No fair-minded person could object to tho clause,-which lie was sure the Council would insert and send to another place where neither political party would demur to making it law-. (Hear, hoar.) Tho clause ho proposed was os follows:

(1.) The indictable offence of publishing -a defamatory libcK or of criminal defamation within the moaning of the Crime? Act, 1908, shall also b© an offence punishable on summary conviction bc- " fore a Magistrate by a fine of £IOO or by imprisonment for three months. .'(2.) In any,such summary proceedings it shall be a good defence that the ■ doff amatory' matter • published by the defendant was true, and that ,tho publication thereof was for the-public, benefit, but no evidence of the truth of such matter shall bo admissible until and unless the defendant proves that, assuming the matter so published to bo true, tho publication thereof was for the public benefit. k • (3.) An information for any offence punishable on summary conviction un- i der this section shall bo taken and heard before a magistrate only, and no such prosecution ; shall be commenced without the order of a magistrate; and notice of tho intention to apply for such an order shall be given to the dc- ■ fendant, who shall have an opportunity of being heard against the application. NOT HEAVZ ENOUGH. !■ "The penalty ought to be . twice as much,"* said the Hon. W. C. F. Canioroas. Or Findlay’ went on to say : that in. cases oi criminal defamation two things had now to be proved-—the truth of ihc allegation and that it was published fer tile public benefit. The only change that would be made would be that tho order in. which the defences could bo set up would be prescribed by Jaw, and-that the man on trial would be called upon to show first that' the publication was. for the public benefit. It would not place any honourable man in any difficulty. In all these oases of brutal attack upon a man's character the end was not public benefit but blackmail. He knew for a fact that in connection with the matter that had - attracted so much attention lately, sums of : money . had been demanded and the total issue of the publication had been offered if the man who was - suffering chose to pay, for it. But like a man he refused to pay.' (Hear, hear). This was the sort of thing from which public men find to be protected. .The vile assassins must suffer. He believed that tho clause would meet,, the evil at which it was aimed.

GENERAL APPROVAL The Hon. W. C. JF. Cam cross (Taranaki), in welcoming the Bill as an instalment of justice to the journalistic pioiiisslon, expnessed particular pleasure at the introduction of the new clause just relented to. Ho thought the AttorneyGeneral had done the right thing in Bringing it down.

< “The proposal lias given more pleasure to the Council than, anything we have had L for some weeks,” declared the Hon. J. E. Jenkinson. He added that several members had xecentiiy been muck •exercised in the endeavour to draw up some such clause to protect pauilc men, but »ieoognisoa that it ws«g an extremely difficult matter to deal with. The Council was to be congratulated that they had an Attorney-General with aulLty and foresight enough to; draw up: a clause that would moot the position. (Hear, hear). The pamphlet which had been bo muck discussed recently was the work of a xuau who had no sense of decency, right :or justice, but who was actuated simply with-a desire to puli somebody down, aud, having got him down, to jump on him; Every member of the : Legislature, every man in the Dominion, wouid be pioet anxious to sec the clause inserted in the Bill and effecting Its object. (Hear, hear). For himself, he would like to see far more ■ discretion leeft to judges and magistrates as to what matter was <iexamatary or libellous. . A • writer, . if cuto enough, could tear a man's life to pieces, besmirch his character, and yet keep within the four corners of the law*, it was easy to understand how Sir Joseph Ward hesitated to biing in such a clause as this, and his action in the matter clearly showed that the admiration members had for him was not misplaced. The clause would receive his hearty support and ho hoped it would have the effect hoped for it. (Hear, hear). The Hon. R, A. Loughnan (Wellington) welcomed the clause, which was aimed at scoundrels only and would inflict m> hardship on any tra • lie hid no doubt that it would be;in -erted. 'V : 'v-'' :'■V ! '':W. A SCURRILOUS WRITER. The Hon. W. Bochan (Auckland) complimented the Attorney-General upon in* troducing 'such a clause. Nobody was

safe from the attacks of a man like the writer'of the scurrilous pamphlet referred to. In his paper, published i» Auckland,, tho man was making the vilest attacks 1 uoon men, couching them in tho lowest and most disgraceful language. Ho himself had been libelled in this way, but would not give the writer tho satisfaction of retaliation. As a matter of fact, ho believed the man was mad. “Madness means money, though/' re* marked the Attorney-General. Mr Beckon advocated the most stringent penalties for repetition of a libel. The Hon. J. Barr (Canterbury) ' said that the paper referred to, * f Thc Loader/’ was described os a Labour paper, but it was nothing of the sort. It in no way represented tho • opinion of Labour—(hear, hear) —and he wanted that made quite clear. All true Labour men elepres rated the filthy pamphlet published in Auckland for. thourh they. ” '‘cy believed in fighting fair. (Hear. hear). ABSOLUTELY DELINKED. Tho Hon. H. F. Wigraxu (Canterbury} said he had spoken to numbers of buss. ne»s men on the subject ■ .recently, and one and all had absolutely deplored tho publication of this pamphlet. Though ths number hod included ninny men on rite so-cil’ed Conservative side of politics fits had not heard one singleword in.sup* port cf the thing. f The Hon. C. At. Luke (Wellington) sahl ho had not hoard one man speaking-, in favour of the pamphlet, which ho was convinced was revolting in the extreme to - every section of the community. It Had outraged tho sense of decency of men throughout the Dominion. The Attorney-General said that the unanimous j approval of his ■ proposalheartened him very much, , for he had token this step any consultation with Cabinet at all. The second rending was carried on tho •voices and the Bill was committed. THE CLAUSE ADDED.

When the Attorney-General moved tha new' clause the Hon. IV. 0. Smith moved to increase the penalty from £IOO to. ,£2OO, saying that: it ought to*:,;De stiff enough to make men thinks twice l ; before going on with anything of this sort. Dr Findlay asked that the clausa should be left as it stood. It, provided an expeditious method of getting at those people, and, in any case, was supplementary to the existing law. The amendment was withdrawn and ; the new' clause agreed to, the Bill being subsequently ’reported, read r the third time, and passed. ADOPTION BY THE'HOUSE UNANIMOUS AGREEMENT. In moving in the House of Representatives that the amendment t bo agreed to, the Hon. J. A. Miilar said it , had been stated that the House would > be unanimously in favour of such o clause. , ~ .. . Air R. A. Wright (Wellington South) said tho amendment was very important, and while ho sympathised with its object ho regarded it os impossible, ■as 4 to prove that a sbatemont was in tho in-terests-1 of the public was impossible. It was all a matter of opinion, ahdrin a ro cent cnee the judge had directed that a : publication. was in the public bonfcfi.lkd>ut the jury had-- found otherwise. ; ■ Mr Millar said the amendment did not alter the pleas, but merely directed the: order of them. ; At present either plea could be taken first, aad/mvunably. tho: first pica was .truth, during which all tho pnid-sliiigin.g could go on. and if the ploa failed tho declined to go on. If a man could not prove that publico-, tlon was in the public interest he do served to bo punished. ■' ■ ■ '■ ;. Mr A. L. Herdman (Wellington Norihj said the clause gave magistrates power to find , a man guilty, and he „wae , euro if was wise to give- > this extansion, / which withdrew the right of trial by jury. Mu Massoy (leader .of tlie Opposition).: said ho 'sympathised with the object of the clause, but it gave much more power to magistrate®, who d-vi ; not enjoy the confidence of the public. .He suggested that ; tho clause should be disagreed with for the purpose of inserting “Supreme Court judge*/ 1 instead of magistralos. He would like to see the clause extended to anyone who attempted to -associate de cent mem with a defamatory Übcl. The .Minister, in reply, said right of ax>poal if the fine was more than Xo. or imprisonment for one month.-; The amendment w-as agreed to without dissent./ • ;