LIBEL AND SLANDER

Rotorua Morning Post, Volume 2, Issue 232, 23 May 1932, Page 3

LIBEL AND SLANDER

THE DIFFERENCE INTERESTING POINTS EXPLAINED BY JUDGE. THE LEGAL POSITION. A non-lawyer is sometimes puzzled by the expression 'the greater the truth the greater the libel," writes Mr. Justiee McCleary. In the newspaper reports of libel eases whieh he has read he has frequently observed that truth is put forward as a defence to the action. How, therefore, ban it be said that truth aggravates the libel? Libel may be the subject of both civil and criminal proceedings. In eivil proceedings an action is brought by a person concerning whom a statement has been made which is calculated to expose him to hatred, contempt, or ridicule, or to convey an imputation on him disparaging or jurious to him in his trade, business, profession or calling or offiee. He seeks to recover damages for the injury he has sustained. ^He cannot succeed unless the defamatory statement which has been made concerning him was false. If the defendant can prove that the statement was true he has a complete defence to the action. In criminal proceedings a prosecution is instituted where the libel is in the toature of a public offence as tending to a breaeh of the peace by provoking the person libelled to break it. The peace of the community must not be disturbed, and any person who provokes another to break it is guilty of a criminal offence. It is eonsidered that a tru& statement is more likely to provoke than a statement which is false, and therefore in cri- , minal proceedings the greater the truth the greater the libel. ' In order to follow a libel or slander case with intelligence it is necessary to have some acquaintance with the legal principles which are applied to such cases.

Publication. For all practical purposes the distinction between libel and slander may be stated very shortly. In libel the 'defamatory statement is expressed or conveyed by written or printed words or in some permanent form! in slander the statement is expressed or conveyed by spoken words, sounds or gestures, or in some form which is not permanent. In both cases there must be publication of a defamatory statement which is false. The publication must be to a third person or persons. You may say what you like to a man as long as there is no one within hearing and you have the courage so to do; you may tell him what you think of him in your letter to him if you ar-e sure that the letter will not be opened by someone else. The nature of the defamatory statement had already been indicated. It may talce innumerable forms. It may vary with the standard of public opinion at the tirne when it is made. It was not wise during the Great War to say of a man that he was a German; but now the remark may be made without fear of evil consequenees. The Imputation.

The test is whether the imputation tends to hold the person accused up to hatred, contempt or ridicule. And the statement may not be in direct words and may still be defamatory. An ingenious libeller or slanderer may make use of words which in their ordinary sense are innocent but yet may convey an imputation which is objectionable. For instance, to say of a lawyer that he is ambidexterous may be to use very innocent words, but the meaning or "innuendo" may be to that he is in the habit of receiving fees from both sides, and if it should be understood to convey this meaning, the statement is defamatory. The de- ' f amatory statement must be false, but as every person is presumed to be of good repute until the contrary is shown, the burden of proving its truth is upon the defendant. if he cares to rely on truth as a defence. ' Llnes of Defence. There are several defences open to a person who is sued for damages for libel or slander. The" usual defences may be stated shortly as follows: — 1. The defendant may deny that he made the statement. This is a useful defence in slander actions, because it calls upon the plaintiff to prove that the words were said, but in libel 'cases the defendant can generally be confronted by a written or printed doeument. ' 28. He may deny that his statement refers to the plaintiff. In effect re may say: 'I did not make the cap for you; if you think it fits you that is not .my fault."

3. He may deny that his statement is defamatory. Mere vulgar abuse which cannot be taken seriously by anyone who hears it is not defamatory. In this respect it is not the intention of the law to put a premium on vulgarity. The essence of the matter is the sense in which those who hear the words spoken will talce them. 40. He may allege that the statement was made upon a privileged occasion. Anything said in any ordinary proceeding in court or in Parliament is absolutely privileged; any communication made by a person who has an interest or duty to make it and the person who receives it has a corresponding interest or duty is privileged unless it is made malieiously. A common example of this privilege is where a former master gives a character to a person who contemplates engaging the servant. 5. He may justify his statement on the ground that it is true. This is a complete defence if it can be proved. There are other defences with reference to reports of proceedings and to literary criticisms and other matters which are not, perhaps, of general interest. The damages recovered in an action for libel or slander may be a very serious matter. A person's character must not be lightly attacked. A defendant's conduct before the action, after the action has been started, and even in court during the trial may be taken into consideration in fixing the amount of the damages. Therefore, though there may be many defences open, it is wise to keep a careful guard over both tongue and pen when lealing with another person.