@llt [.otttßponùtnt November 1985
Lawyers Sue libel g,"delines YOU print a story in good faith
and
reasonably believe it to be true, so you are
protected from the legal consequences. True or false?
If you
accurately quote a senior government official's statement about someone, you cannot be sued for libel. True or false? If you report on a criminal case, unaware that an arrest has been made, you are not liable for prosecution for con-
tempt. True or false? If you answered "true" to any of those questions, or even had to think hard about them, maybe you should have been at the seminar on libel and contempt at the Club on October 24. Nearly 60 people turned out to hear assistant attorney-general William Marshall
and solicitors Noel Campbell and Julian Pope sketch a road map through the legal jungle that working hacks must struggle through.
Mike Maclachlan of the Far
Eastern
Economic Review moderated the twohour, off-the-record session, which the participants consented to have reported in The Correspondent. The good news is that the hammer of the law has come down on journalists re-
latively rarely
in Hong Kong. The bad
news is that the potential for legal disaster is enormous and complex and ignorance
is no bliss,
-
With regard to contempt,
Marshall
pointed out, "it doesn't matter that you did not as an editor or a working journalist see the danger." The curtain comes down,
he said, when legal proceedings are imminent in practical terms, when an arrest has been made or is about to be made. One defence, he said, is to show that the journalist took reasonable care and had no way of knowing that proceedings were imminent. But he added: "The burden is on the defence, that is to say the newspaper, and they are the people who have to
-
A matter of security APART from the odd "liberated" umbrella and the occasional "walking" overcoat, the Club is relatively free from problems which might be loosely described as securlty.
The overcoat problem appears to have been solved since we moved f¡om Sutherland House by the simple expedient of neglecting to provide anywhere for members to hang their coats, thereby forcing them to hold on to them and prevent them straying.
However, there has been some concern raised over the question of security, partly by the stupid behaviour of the unnamed person though not necessarily unknown who recently removed all the pictures from the walls in the main bar, not just once, but twice. There have been other reports of strangers using our lavatories whatever their deficiencies, they are better than those of
-
-
-
a
nelghbouring establishment of - toand others using facilities who refuse iden-
tify
themselves to club staff.
The Board, at a meeting on 25 October, discussed these matters and came to the conclusion that they were reluctant to insist that all members be required to carry their membership cards at least for the
time being. But they do wish to request that you do carry your card, and point out that every Club member is obliged to give his/her Club number to any member of the staff or a security guard who requests it. Serious consequences could follow a refusal to do so. A
new security firm was employed from November 1 and members will have noted that there is a uniformed guard on the front door most of the time now. We hope that no further measures will be necessary.
check. If they don't check, that'defence is not available to them." Campbell said the "good guy" argument is also no help in libel: "lt's nr7 defe4ce to say, 'l did the best I could. I did'iit honestly. There was no malice. I took,ull re_asonâble steps. I published in good faith'.'If
what you say is untrue and it
,pefåmes
someone, then you are exposed.",
'
And, once again, the burden of
the
proof is on the defendant. Defamation is broadly defined as anything which "tends to lower a person in the estimation of righrthinking members of society" which has been held, in the - for Philippines instance, to include the alleghation that a certain lawyer's office was "deserted and visited only by flies." The fact that you were quoting someone else is no crutch, said Campbell: "You're really on your own in libel whatever you do when you put pen to paper." But you may not be on your own when it comes to assess the damages. Your editor, publisher, printer, distributor and anyone who republishes your report can go down with you.
Pope listed five main defences: the words were not defamatory; the words were true; publication was covered by privilege, or it was fair comment on a matter of public interest. And the concept of privilege can be
tricky, he warned. Pope also gave a check-list of safety procedures:
o Use primary sources. a Cross-check your sources. o Give the subject an opportunity
to
comment.
o Keep your notes. o When in doubt seek legal advice. o Clearly distinguish fact from com-
ment.
o Where possible don't publish factual stories you cannot prove (although most of us know that on a practical level this could mean a lot less copy and a lot more beer breaks for everybody).
-
Peter Mackler