A SPECTATOR 'S NOTEBOOK I SHOULD doubt whether the Chancellor's Committee
on the Law of Defamation, which is now preparing its report, would find much food for reflection in the Laski libel action, for the issue turned more than is common in such cases on a pure question of fact— whether the Newark Advertiser's report of Professor Laski's speech was fair and accurate. The jury having decided that it was, no further question fell to be considered, for the Judge (the jury concurring, though unnecessarily) had already ruled that the speech, and the report of it, were matters of public concern. But the cost of actions like this, and the effect a verdict may have on one or other of the parties, does raise questions to which some attention ought to have been paid. The mere costs in this case, damages being left out of account altogether, might well be crippling for either party. They are estimated at something like fro,000. It is very doubtful whethPr the Newark Advertiser could have paid that and survived ; it is true that certain London papers had promised their support, but that would normally not happen. What effect the payment of such a sum as is mentioned will have on Profesor Laski I do not know, but he must no doubt have weighed all the possibilities when he decided to bring the action. The verdict being what it was, no question of damages arose. What that could add to the losing side is sufficiently demonstrated by the action brought against The Star by Sir Oswald Mosley in 1934; then, as now, the issue turned ultimately on the accuracy or otherwise of a report of a speech. In that event The Star had to pay £5,000 damages in addition to all costs.
Previous page
