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)

NOTICE

In re Donnchadh O Buachalla a Bankrupt

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.

105