DEFAMATORY LIBEL.

Oamaru Mail, Volume XXXVIII, Issue 10628, 3 December 1910, Page 4

DEFAMATORY LIBEL.

THE PRIME MINISTER TO BE PROTECTED. A CLAUSE TO MEET THE -f PAMPHLETER. By Telegraph. (From Our Own Correspondent.),' "■_ Wellington, December 2. "I am going to move an amendment to this Bill on a-matter ..which is oi" vital importance to ■ every public man ...in-'the. country," ■ said the AttorneyGeneral (the lion. .Dr Findlay) when moving the second reading of the Libel Bill in the Legislative Council to-day. It was liis intention, he said, to introduce a provision designed to meet such cases as the scurrilous pamphlet recently published in Auckland and discussed in the House' on Wednesday. Dr Findlay remarked that every now and then the public sense of decency and fairplay was outraged by tlie 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 his defamatory productions. Bis purpose was never public interest, or benefit, but to put money into his own pocket by means of ha.se attacks upon decent men and women. Ho had drafted a, clause to meet the case and .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 he had suffered more than any other man in the country from this sort of mercenary defamation, the suggestion might be made that he was responsible for the clause. Sir Joseph Ward had, therefore, declined- to insert it in the House; but, while respecting the sense of delicacy that the Prime Minister evinced in connection with the matter, he (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, hear.) He had not even consulted Cabinet, but was going to ask the Council to put the clause in. No fairminded person could object to it, and he was sure the Council would insert and send it to another place, where neither political party would demur to making it law. —(Hear, hear.) The clause lie proposed was as follows: (1) The indictable offence of publishing a defamatory libel, or of criminal defamation, within the meaning of the Crimes Act, 190S, shall also be an offence punishable on sunimary conviction before a magistrate by a fine of one hundred pounds or by imprisonmont for three months. (2) In any such summary proceedings it shall be a good defence that the defamatory, matter published by the defendant was true and that the publication thereof was for the public benefit, but no evidence of the truth of such matter shall be admissible until •r-nd unless the defendant 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 heard 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.

Dr Findlay went 011 to say that in cases of criminal defamation two things had now to be proved—the truth of the allegation and the fact that it was published for the public benefit. The-:oiily change that would be made would be that the order in which the defence could be set up would be prescribed by law, and that the man 011 trial would be called upon to show that the publication was for the public benefit and that it would not place any honorable man in any difficultv.

Cordial support of the-clause was expressed, by members of the. Council, and the .clause was passed through all its stages.

In the morning, in the House of Representatives, it was moved that the amendment should he agreed to. The Hon. J. A. Millar said, that it had heen stated that the House would he unanimously in favour of such a clause. Mr R. A. Wright said that the amendment was very important, and, while he sympathised with its object, he regarded it as impossible to provo that a statement was in the interest of the public. It was all a matter of opinion, and in a. recent case the judge had directed, that a publication was for the public benefit, but the jury had found otherwise.

Hon. J. A. Millar said that the amendment did not alter the pleas, but merely directed the order of them. At present either plea could be taken first, and, invariably the first plea was truth, during which all the mud slinging could go on, and if the plea, failed, the defendant declined to go on. If a man could not prove that a. publication was in the public interest, he deserved to be punished. Mr A. L. Herdman said that the clause gave magistrates power to find a man guilty, and lie was not sure that it was wise to give this extension, which withdrew the right of trial by jury. Mr Massey said that he sympathised with the object of the clause, but it gave too much power to magistrates, who did not enjoy the confidence of the public. He suggested that the clause should be disagreed with for the purpose of inserting "Supreme Court Judges" instead of "Magistrates." He would like to see the clause extended to anyone who attempted to associate decent men with a defamatory libel. The Minister, in reply, said l that there was the right of appeal, if the fine, was more that £5, or imprisonment for one month.

.'-The was agreed to without d issent.,