THE LAW OF LIBEL

Otago Daily Times, Issue 23528, 17 June 1938, Page 11

THE LAW OF LIBEL

EFFORT FOR ITS REFORM ABSURD ANOMALIES (From Our Own Correspondent) (By Air Mail) LONDON, May 25. “ Patent injustices ’’ in the present law of libel were criticised by the annual conference of the Empire Press Union, over which Major the Hon. J. J. Astor presided. The council, instead of reintroducing the Parliamentary Bill drafted by Mr Kenneth Henderson, decided to obtain advice from Mr Valentine Holmes, the barrister, who had drawn up a redrafted Bill. In his written advice to the union Mr Holmes stated: “ To anyone who has a fair practice in this branch of the law the present law is an outrage. . . . I think that the law ought to be radically altered so as to give a cause of action (1) to persons who have suffered from offensive public statements about their private life when the private life of the person referred to is of no public interest: and (2) to traders who have had false statements maliciously made about their products or business, although no actual financial loss can be proved. On the other hand, an ordinary action for libel should not, in my view, lie where the defendant can prove that he has been neither malicious nor negligent and is prepared to make amends by way of correction and apology; nor should a person with nc reputation be able to get damages on the same footing as if he had a good reputation (which he can do at present).” LOWER-GRADE AMERICAN METHOD Sir Percy Hurd, M.P., told the conference that he was afraid that the press was not very much in favour in the House of Commons. Sir Stanley Reed. M.P. for Aylesbury, pointed out that there had been only one or two cases of invasion of privacy by the press, and the vast majority of newspapers had retained the dignity which was an honour .to th<* craft. “ Because M.P.’s have run away from the responsibility of mentioning one or two offenders by name, it has reacted against us very much,’ he added. “I hope in future that mention will be made of the actual newspaper which has committed an offence.” Replying to this, Sir Percy Hurd said: “ I do not suppose for a moment that the members of the House of Commons, with whom I come in touch, have any misconception as to the unique character of the great body of the British press, but unfortunately there has come about an intrusion of what one may call the lower-grade American method. It has caused a reflection on a section of the press and has withdrawn from a large section of the House of Commons that sympathy for the press which otherwise they would feel.”

“ INIQUITOUS STATE OF AFFAIRS ”

Sir Thomas McAra said it was not a question of whether somd papers did wrong with regard to so-called intrusion. The whole question was that Mr Holmes’s statement showed the utter anomaly and absurdity of the libel law as it stood at present. They had an extremely strong case for a reform of the law, and they ought to press In and out of season for a remedy for “ an absurd, grotesque, and iniquitous state of affairs.” Sir Edward Cunningham (Australia), referring to the libel laws in Australia, said that they suffered most grievously from what he did not hesitate to describe as “ sheer blackmail.” Lord Iliffe pointed out that there seemed to be a consensus of opinion that the law of libel required reform, and he suggested that the conference should pass a resolution on the subject, urging the council to produce a bill and to take steps to have it introduced into the House of Commons as speedily as possible. Sir Stanley Reed then proposed the following resolution, which was unanimously passed:— “This conference, appreciating the action of the council in pressing forward reform of the law of libel, urges it to take every possible measure to introduce a satisfactory reform in that law on the lines of Mr Holmes’s draft Bill, not only to remedy the patent injustice of the existing law, but for the greater security and liberty of the press, both at home and in the Empire. Later. Mr H. A. Gwynne, for many years the distinguished editor of the Morning Post, remarked that in the fight for high circulation among some newspapers it had become necessary to cover every activity of life. So wide was the net spread that “ news went far beyond the classic example of the dog and the man, and journalists were driven into other and less reputable methods to satisfy a craving which they themselves had created. , "I have never in the whole of my experience,” he said. “ found such hos-

tility to the press in Parliament as exists to-day. The freedom of the press is as much a heritage of our people as the freedom to do as we like within the law. It would be a catastrophe beyond computation if this were to go.” On the whole, he thought newspapers had benefited from the advent of wireless, but he warned the profession to watch with care all and every development of television. GROUNDS FOR LIBEL TEXT OF DRAFT BILL The text of the Empire Press Union's Bill for amending the libel law as resettled by Mr Valentine Holmes is as follrfws: — 1. Except in cases in which the plaintiff proves actual financial damage, no action for libel published after the passing of this Act shall lie unless the words complained of: — (a) Impute sexual Immorality, drunkenness or cruelty; or (b) charge the plaintiff with having committed an offence punishable by imprisonment or impute that the plaintiff has an obnoxious contagious disease; or (c) are published of the plaintiff' in relation to his or her office pro-;, fession or trade or in relation to his or her conduct in performance of a public duty.

Provided always that unless the judge certifies to the contrary a plaintiff shall not in respect of any action which lies by reason of paragraphs fa) and (c) hereof recover more costs than damages. 2. In any action for libel, where the libel complained of has been published after the passing of this Act, it shall be a defence for the defendant to prove that at the date of publication he had no reasonable ground for supposing that the words complained of referred to the plaintiff. - 3. A fair and accurate report published in any newspaper of any proceeding to which members of the public are admitted or of any document to which members of the public have access shall, provided the subject matter of such proceedings or document be of public interest, be privileged unless it be proved that such report was published maliciously: provided that the protection intended to be afforded by this section shall not' be available in any proceedings if it shall be proved that the defendant has been requested to insert in the* newspapers in which the report complained of appeared a reasonable letter or statement by way of contradic-’ tion or explanation of such report and' had refused or neglected to insert the* same. 4. A meeting of shareholders of a public company shall be deemed to be a public meeting within the meaning of section 4 of the Law of Libel Amendment Act, 1888. 5. (1) This Act may be cited as the Law of Libel Amendment Act, 1938. (2) This Act shall not apply to Scotland- ■ dJ