ALLEGED LIBEL

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 75, Issue 177, 29 July 1932, Page 8

ALLEGED LIBEL

STATEMENT IN PAMPHLET [ ACTION BY POLICE INSPECTOR JURY FAILS TO AGREE i [ Per Press Association. I AUCKLAND, July 28. As a sequel to the unemployed demonstration in the grounds of Parliament. House on September 16, George Budd and Ernest Frederick Thomson were tried at the Supreme Court to-day on a charge of publishing a defamatory libel of Inspector Lander of the police. The alleged libel was contained in a pamphlet entitled “War” distributed at a meeting held in Auckland in October, and it referred to Inspector Lander as a “liar and perjurer” when he said he was not armed while on duty during the disturbance. After detectives had given evidence counsel produced a photograph taken during the disturbance. Both the detectives said they considered that Inspector Lander, who could be seen in the photograph, was not armed. The man- indicated by counsel was not Inspector Lander. Counsel then said it was clear that a mistake had been made by the acvused. They had seen the photograph and had believed that the man carrying the baton was Inspector Lander. After further evidence had been heard counsel for the accused said the astonishing thing was that a magistrate had ever permitted a prosecution for criminal libel. Inspector Lander had his remedy through a civil action for libel. The Crown Prosecutor said that the law of criminal libel had been brought in only* in 1901 because it had been found necessary to restrain irresponsible and dangerous persons from libelling men in public positions. His Honor described the case as a comparatively simple one. The statements against Inspector Lander were that he was a liar, that he perjured himself, that he attacked defenceless men and women. It was open to the defence to seek to prove that the statements were true, but they had not done so. If these words had been published it would be absurd and impossible to suggest that they were not defamatory. The main defence was that these two men were not responsible for the publication and distribution of the paper, but there was the direct evidence of two police officers implicating Thompson and the name of Budd was at the bottom of the paper. The real question was: “Is this a defamatory ‘libel referring to Inspector Lander?” After three and a-half hours’ retirement the jury returned to ask if a verdict of publishing was found against Budd and of distributing against Thompson would both be equally guiltv. His Honor replied that if Budd published the linel he was guilty and if Thompson distributed a libellous document he also was guilty. Impossibility of reaching an agreement was reported by the foreman after a retirement of four and a-half hours. His Honor discharged the jury and said that the accused would be re-tried on Monday. “No, I won’t allow them bail,” he told counsel “They can stay where they are.”