Lord Russell Gets £5000 Damages

Press, Volume CV, Issue 30977, 5 February 1966, Page 7

Lord Russell Gets £5000 Damages

(N.Z.P.A. Reuter —Copyright)

LONDON, Feb. 4.

A London High Court jury has awarded Lord Russell of Liverpool £5OOO damages against the British satirical magazine, “Private Eye.”

Lord Russell, author of three books dealing with war crimes, had sued the magazine proprietors and publishers and five men concerned with running the paper for libel. He said he had been ridiculed in an article in the magazine in 1962 which was written as a report of a fictitious trial of “Lord Liver of Cesspool.” The magazine is renowned for it lampoons of political celebrities.

“Private Eye” denied that the article was libellous or meant that Lord Russell had written books about Nazi and Japanese atrocities to stimulate an unhealthy interest in war crimes.

Lord Russell is the author of two best-selling books—‘The Scourge of the Swastika” and “Knights of Bushido”—dealing with Nazi and Japanese war-time atrocities.

Sumpiing up the four-day hearing the Judge said Lord Russell claimed the article meant he had preyed on the baser instincts of people for his personal gain. The crux was whether the article meant that, or merely raised

the question whether it was better not to write books which necessarily contained horrific material. After the hearing Lord Russell said he would start writing a new book, but he did not say what it would be about.

The “Private Eye” article was headed: “Peer accused of gave charges.” It began: “The trial was today concluded of Lord Liver of Cesspool, who had been charged on 15 counts of stimulating unnatural, inhuman and barbarous interest in war crimes, of exploiting the basest instincts of humanity by publishing de•grading books and other materials and of other crimes against human decency.” It continued: “The prosecution alleged that in the years after 1945 there had been a widespread and gigantic attempt to poison the minds of at least six million people in many countries with such material—and that the accused had played a key role in the propagation of the matter.”

The article concluded that the accused was “found guilty and hanged.”