The Gazette 1973

TRIAL BY JURY ORDERED FOR BERNARD LEVIN LIBEL CASE

The libel action in the High Court over an article by Bernard Levin on the close of the Daily Sketch is to be tried with a jury, the Court of Appeal decided yesterday. It allowed, by a majority, an appeal by Times News- papers Limited, against a ruling by Mr. Justice Ackner, that the case be tried by a judge alone. The Times, its editor, Mr. William Rees-Mogg, and Mrs. Levin are being sued by Associated Newspapers Limited, who published the Daily Sketch , the com- pany's president Viscount Rothermere, and its chairman, Mr. Vere Harmsworth. Lord Denning, Master of the Rolls, said Associated Newspapers claimed the article meant the Rothermere group was an ill-run group which shamefully closed a great newspaper—giving bogus reasons of economy— whereas the true reason was to make unconscionable additional profits. Further, that it had closed the news- paper in a brutal manner causing acute hardship to a loyal staff. The Times pleaded justification and fair comment. In its plea for a trial by a Judge alone, the group said a massive number of documents would need prolonged examination. "I think this assertion may well turn out to be a bogy which, in capable hands, can be cut down to size." No doubt the trial would be long and complicated, but length and complication of themselves were no bar to a jury. It was not length and complication, but pro- longed examination of documents which took away the right of a jury. He was not satisfied the case would require such prolonged examination. Lord Denning added : "Looking back on our history, I hold that, if a newspaper has criticised the great and the powerful on a matter of large public interest and is then carged with libel, its guilt or innocence should be tried by a jury, if the newspaper asks for it, even though it requires the prolonged examination of documents." Lord Rothermere and his colleagues had been accused of shameful conduct. "If they had themselves asked for a jury, surely they would have been given one? It is one of the essential freedoms that the newspapers should be able to make fair comment on matters of public interest. So long as they get their facts right they are entitled to speak out. " I can understand the concern of the editor (of the Times) to preserve the right of a defendant to trial by jury. He regards it as the duty of his newspaper to bring to the notice of the people those matters which are of public interest and concern, and to point out those things which in his view are done wrong, no matter how high and mighty the participators may be. If he should overstep the mark he would rather have his guilt or innocence decided by a jury of his fellowmen than by a judge." Lord Justice Lawton agreed that there should be a jury. "If the defendants lose their action and heavy damages are awarded against them, the newspaper scene in this country may never be the same again. "The reputation which the Times has enjoyed for so long around the world for responsible journalism will be sadly dented, if not destroyed. The destruction of its reputation would be the destruction of a national insti- tution. In my judgment a trial which could have this

result should not be the responsibility of one man." He continued : "The plaintiffs are alleged by the defendants to have put profits before people. If the facts upon which they have based this allegation are ture, the Court may have to decide whether the imputation of dishonour was one which the defendants could fairly make against the plaintiffs. "I have no doubt that many judges would welcome the help of a jury on a problem of this kind." Lord Justice Cairns, dissenting, said he was con- vinced that trial by judge alone was more likely to bring a just result. He did not believe public confidence in the Times on the one hand, or the Daily Mail (owned by Associated Newspapers) on the other would depend on the result of the action. "In my view, it is not of any exceptional impor- tance to the public. The case has nothing to do with extending or limiting the freedom of the press." One disadvantage of a trial by jury was that if it reached a wrong result through misunderstanding there was no way of correcting it unless the verdict could be seen to be perverse. The fact that a judge had to give reasons for his decision was a point in favour of trial by judge alone. Lord Justice Cairns added : "At the end of it all the question is : which mode of trial is most conducive to justice? "Justice, of course, means justice to both sides. I see no good reason for supposing that one mode of trial rather than the other is likely to result in success for one side rather than the other." —The Guardian (14 February 1972) Mr. Donnchadh O Buachalla who practised at 69 Merrion Square was adjudicated a bankrupt on 11 January 1973. His office and clients' papers are under the control of the Official Assignee. The Court has made a general order giving the Official Assignee liberty to hand over original deeds and documents to solicitors for former clients of the bankrupt on certain conditions. These conditions include the signing of an undertaking that any costs found to be due will be paid to the Official Assignee in due course. Any solicitor seeking documents on behalf of former clients of the bankrupt should communicate with the Official Assignee. NOTICE In re Donnchadh O Buachalla a Bankrupt

105