664 / 736
specific request to refer to a particular firm to
you for investigation, and, because their name
has occurred in so many cases of complaint to
me in the past, I have decided to comply with the
request exceptionally."
Mr. Freeson then set out details of a com
plaint made by a constituent, Mr. J. H. Gold,
of Brondesbury, London.
Mr. Norman Beach said that he had been
a solicitor since 1935. He described the letter as
"baseless, wild and reckless," and said that at
no time had he received any complaint from Mr.
Freeson about the firm's conduct.
His brother, Mr. Cyril Beach, said in evidence
that he felt the function of an M.P. was to engage
in Parliamentary activities. "Frequently an M.P.
decides to hold a constituency surgery for the
purpose of giving advice. The purpose of the
surgery is the same as kissing babies at election
time—merely
to ensure
success at
the next
election," he said.
Eventually it was held that the M.P.'s letter
to the Law Society and the Lord Chancellor did
not libel a London firm by Mr. Justice Geoffrey
Lane.
He gave
judgment for Mr. Reginald Freeson,
M.P.,
afer a
four-day action
in which
two
brothers, Norman and Cyril Beach, who practise
as Beach and Beach of Cricklewood, Broadway,
London, claimed damages for libel in the letter
which they alleged was written with malice.
The
solicitors were ordered
to pay costs
estimated at £4,000.
Mr. Freeson's letter told of alleged complaints
against
the
solicitors by a number of Mr.
Freeson's constituents for whom they had acted.
The judge held that the letter was not actuated
by malice and, in any event, was covered by
"qualified privilege."
"It would be a sad day," he said, "when a
Member of Parliament or indeed any other mem
ber of the public has to look over his shoulder
before
ventilating
to
the
proper
authority
criticism about the work of a public servant or a
professional man who is holding himself out in
practice, for the benefit of the public, which he
honestly believes to merit investigation."
In the letter to the Law Society, of which a
copy was sent
to
the Lord Chancellor, Mr.
Freeson had then set out details of a complaint
made by a constituent, Mr. J. H. Gold.
Mr. Freeson added in his letter: "I want to
underline that this is not the only case where
constituents have complained of the conduct of
the firm concerned, and the conduct of other firms
has been similarly queried and criticised, although
none so often as this one.
"There are people all over the country who
are suffering at the hands of a minority of certain
solicitors and I hope that this complaint can be
fully investigated by your society."
The solicitors had contended, said the judge,
that there was no duty, social, moral or legal,
upon Mr. Freeson to write to the Law Society
in the way he did. But there was no doubt that
in recent years there had been a remarkable in
crease in the amount of work done by M.P.s
outside the House on behalf of constituents.
"The reasons are not altogether clear—possibly
it is that the private individual feels increasingly
that he is at the mercy of huge amorphous and un
feeling organisations who will pay no attention
to his feeble cries unless they are amplified by
someone in authority. An M.P. in these circum
stances is an obvious ally to whom to turn."
It was a short step from that to hold that in
general an M.P. had both an interest and a duty
to communicate to the proper body, at the request
of a constituent, any substantial complaint abput
a professional man in practice.
As a Minister of the Crown charged with the
responsibility of ensuring that the machinery of
justice ran smoothly, it was idle to suggest, said
the
judge,
that
the Lord Chancellor had no
interest in the fact that an MP. was making a
complaint about a solicitor to the Law Society.
The copy of the letter which was sent to him was
also protected by qualified privilege.
The crux of the solicitor's case on malice was
that Mr. Freeson had "deliberately lied" about
other complaints. Said the judge: "He genuinely
believed
that
these complaints had substance,
and I do not subscribe
to
the view that he
deliberately set out to lie to the Law Society and
the Lord Chancellor. I exonerate him from that
suggestion."
:
(The Daily Telegraph,
llth February, 1970).
204