LAW OF LIBEL.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 15821, 21 July 1913, Page 2

LAW OF LIBEL.

GOVERNMENTS NEW BILL FREEDOM OF THE PRESS. IMPORTANT AMENDMENTS. (From Our Own Correspondent.) WELLINGTON, July 18. Tho Defamation Bill, which has been introduced into the House of Representatives by the Attorney-general (the Hon. A. L. Herdman), was circulated to-day. It codifies and amends the existing law of libel. The effect of the new Bill generally is to make our law practically the same as the law of England, adding" to it the recommendations of a conference on the subject held in England two years ago. With the exception of what was contained in the now admittedly imperfect Act of 1910, there was nothing in our law relating to civil liability for libel, litigants having to tni6t to the general law of torts.

The new Bill sets out all the oases <n which the .publication of defamatory matter is either wholly or in part protected. The new measure, in addition to making new law, defines precisely what is in the law now, so that newspapers and publishers will know exactly 'what their rights and limitations are. PASSING OF OLD MAXIMS. The Bill does away with the old maxim, " The greater the. truth the greater the libel." This is done under the following clause: —" It is lawful to publish defamatorv matter if the matter is true, and it is for the public benefit that the publication should be made." A new clause pro. vides that fair comment may. be publisned lawfully in certain cases, and the cases specified seem to cover all those in which the right to make fair comment may justly be claimed. The test laid down to decide tho fairness of a comment is in the following clause:—"Whether a comment is of is not fair is a question of fact. If it is not fair and is defamatory, the publication of it is unlawful." NO CRIMINAL LIABILITY FOR SLANDER. Criminal liability for slander or "oral defamation" is abolished, Otluir provisions limit criminal liability in ceitain cases for defamatory matter published in a periodical. A proprietor, publisher, or editor of a periodical is not to be criminally responsible for defamatory matter published therein if he shows that the matter complained of was inserted without his knowledge and without negligence on his part. It is further set out that the general authority given to the person actually inserting the defamatory matter to insert what in hie discretion he may think fit is not negligence. Bv this and by other clauses the freedom of the press is enlarged, but, as the following clause shows, the scurrilous press is not protected:—"A person does not incur any liability for defamation by selling any number or part of a- periodical unless be knows that such number or part contains defamatory matter, or,that defamatory matter is habitually or frequently contained in that periodical." NO CHAIN OF LIBEL ACTIONS. So as to do away with the possibility of a chain of libel actions arising out of the publication simultaneously in several news, papers of the same libel, there is a provision that the court may, on the apnlication of two or more defendants, make an order for the coii£olidation of such actions, so that they shall be tried together. If the libel is proved, the jury may then award a single sum as damages, and the judge or jury may apportion the amount of damages among the defendants. > Newspapers are further protected from being exploited by men of straw by the following clause:—"ln |any aiction for defamation a judge in chambers, if satisfied that the plaintiff is an undischarged bank-, nipt, or otherwise has no visible means the event of a verdict not being found for nlaintiff, may make an order staying all proceedings in the action until the plaintiff gives security for the defendant's costs to the satisfaction of the registrar to an amount not exceeding £25. If security as aforesaid is not given within 12 months after the order, the action shall be deemed to be dismissed with costs, and the defendant shall be at liberty to sign judgment for his costs."

A further protection is afforded to newspapers in cases where excessive damages are claimed. A defendant may nay money into court with or without a defence denying liability.