HL Deb 02 February 1960 vol 220 cc788-9
LORD OGMORE

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

[The Question was as follows:

To ask Her Majesty's Government whether witnesses appearing before the Monckton Commission will be protected against actions for libel or slander in respect of evidence given before the Commission, and whether newspapers accurately reporting the evidence given before the Commission will be similarly protected and will also be safe, in so doing, from criminal prosecution or from action under any detention or restriction orders or proceedings arising out of such orders.]

THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR)

My Lords, witnesses appearing before the Commission, whether in the United Kingdom or in any of the three constituent parts of the Federation, will be entitled to rely on the defence of qualified privilege in any action for libel or slander—that is to say, they will have a good defence in respect of anything said in evidence given honestly and without any indirect or improper motive.

So far as newspaper reports are concerned, the defence of qualified privilege will, under Section 7 of the Defamation Act, 1952, be available to newspapers printed and published in the United Kingdom in respect of reports of evidence given before the Commission while sitting in the United Kingdom. The Act of 1952 does not extend to cover the sittings of the Commission outside the United Kingdom, but in this case the newspaper will be protected by the defence of qualified privilege at Common Law. In Northern Rhodesia, the position is the same as in the United Kingdom by virtue of the Northern Rhodesia Defamation Ordinance and the Common Law. There is no statutory provision in Nyasaland and Southern Rhodesia corresponding to the United Kingdom Act of 1952, but the operation of the general law in those territories will afford protection against civil actions for libel or slander equivalent to that of the defence of qualified privilege at Common Law.

I do not believe there is any risk of criminal proceedings, whether under the law of libel or the emergency legislation in force in the different parts of the Federation, in respect of any fair and accurate newspaper report of evidence given before the Commission.