◆ SpookStack

Pie EASE HIGH COURT OF. JUSTICE_| * QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION JUDGMENT FOR NEWSPAPER IN “SPY ACTION STRAUSS v. ASSOCIATED NEWSPAPERS LTD. freq, Minwsrann Before Mra. Justice Orucacc a comet _| mie G sry | Juv zenent was entered for the defendants in this action in which Mr. Karl Strauss, of Rudolph Avenue, W.8, claimed damages for libel against Associated Newspapers Lid. in respect of the principal item upon the front page of the Daily Mai? for June #3, 7951, under the headlines “Paris holds spy Strauss" and “ Third man link with missing diplomats 7" Mr. Richard O'Sullivan, Q.C., and M Roland Brown appeared for the plainiit M beatae! Salmon, Q.C.. and Mr. fielen IM for the defendants, a: SUMMING-UP Justice QamMerop. summing up, 5a q Fel, defining it in a general way, wag e Hing written and published of a per held him up to hatred, ridicule, d gn. A man’s reputation was som pavhich he was entitled to have guarded, ! # plaintiff said that his reputation had been injured, first, because the Daily Mag- Sai fa he was a spy. and secondly, becausgg they Said thal in thal capacily as @ spy hig had'#tsisied in some way or other in enabling the™Bvo missing diplomats, Burgess a | Maran. io escape from this country and gel behind the iron curtain. The plain said that he had been falsely accused of Ng a spy and in assisting in that escane, Vif defendants ‘satisfied them, the jury, on fhe evidence that the plaintiff was a spy, i then titat was noi defamatam because tt was truc’ if the defendants failed to satisfy them of thal, then the whole document wis defamatory. ‘ Vke plaintiff said that the article went \ her and said that he was the link with sssing diptomats. He (his Lordship BHU that the words were capable of bearing faq meaning and the jury had to deci fresher in fact the aricic, read as a whoky rent that dhe piaingfl was the missing bin Be tcther if meant, as the defendamis sai More than that he was the soct of ma might have been, in all the circu Slances, the link, If that was what the words Febént, that would be a defamatory state- gant of the plaintiff unless the defendania beuid satisfy them, and there was 6 @voedence. that he was the ink wih tite Biptomats, 1e 92€F they came in the conclusion that the plainiitl was a spy, and that the words meant that he was the sort af man who might have been the link with the diplomats, then the Attendanis said that the words were not famatory in themselves because they were §aic comment on a matier of public interest, Tee plaintil invited him this ‘Lordship? to before them whether that in itself was amatory. if it were said of a man thar eo was a spy. and not only that he was a Apy bin that he assisted in the escape ot | the diplomais, that was adding defamation to defamation, but the defendants said that , the words were not 3 stalement of fact but mercly a comment, and that on the facts at ° , Was nol unreasonable to sav, as comment on a matter which affected the public, that he was the sort of man who might have { assisted the diplormais, The evidence as to whether or not the Piaimifi was a spy was almost entirely that of the plaintiff himself. He had said thal he : Was not because what he was doing was te i make Tis on Poliuical Movements which j Menboped fromotcwdes por dl echd eh toruch &firthe infen thatian sbesticrally wuaibvaicods : Maybodpy and creer! tects wntodaingbory soed rar: Warento ony axgeezcg letnvqetinos ‘no AAERROURG RCRA ARE They wouk! rethember that: th erdsi. examinalion the plainiiff had said thal he knew that pressure would he put on the relatives in Crechoslovakia of Cecchoslo- vakian Gitigrés who were known lo he acting In at anti-Canimunis, way. and ihe back. | ground for the defendants’ accusation Was thal. in spite ef that keowledge, he underinak ap reno from time to lime on members of § j fee Crechslovakian community in this [ Senniry. He admiited that it was pul ig dpm by a member of the Crechaslovakiaa 1 Embassy that he was ina position to get int ach with the Crechoslovakians who leaat lo the right. and that, having done that. he could report to the Embassy on what those aple did. Pie was no douht that that was what the uMu agreed to do. He had said hat he never said anything that could cause : damage to members of the Czechoslovakian : Community in London because the informae Non given was either invested or completely |. f miess, The defendants said that on that]: fence he was a spy of the worst possible racter becatse it waa his husiness to worm a Way into the confidence of neonle and n td report about them to their encenics.(! They, the sury, might think that if that wap what fhe plaintiff did. he had found a most unpleasant way of earning his living. They Pught think it unlikely that a mun could £0 omirom 1945 until [950 or 195) giving faise » information to the Prague Government in return far some £40 to £50 a-manth without} | Spine check being made as to its accuracy find value. “LIKE A NOVEL” rhey mighi ask themselves why, if what was doing was above board, he had -Adonted the clahorate method who sen ri a ee iat [ere N reports of which they had heard, and y Might think that it abmost read Tikel: paenovel by Phillins Oppenheim. Was that H | what peopic did if they were not acling in | a secrcl manncr ?) Why did the instructions! | come on microfilms ? “The defendants had | fo satisfy them (the jury) that the plainiilf was a spy: if they were not satisfied thea clearty. in cating him a spy, this document was defamaiory. i The next question was whether or not Me words meant not only that he was 9 spy hul a sp who was in association with the Missing diplomats. They must not merely consider the question mark in the headtne, bur look at the article as a whole, What did they think ? Did it give them te ints On ciation with Burgess and ‘Wy ™ a were the questions which he would put fo ihe jury :— t. Apart from-the reference to the missing diplomats, were the words true in substance ard in fact--thar was. chat the plaintiff was ‘afgry and had been held by the Paris police? - Did the #ords of the article mean that Ihe plaintilf was associated wilh the missing 'diflomats. reading it as comman-sense ,olpinary men and women would ? gO. Uf Yes’ were the words defama t hi they hold the plaintiff up to halted, figicule, and contempt: did they bliicken reputation further in ihe estimatiatg > OF we fricnds 7 aid. Were they fair comment 7? #8. Damages ? ByeQin the question of damages, a maqcy MAiticd to compensation if his ze pion \ i FI Mi because nothing had becn fs in that tespecl. $f they concluded that the Words meant that he was assistingz Basptss Lae Maclean, they mish connie ree “was entitled to substantial da d Isolf they found that the plainuiispgiings a spy, they would have to considgr whether ane further allegation, if it was @iWRmalifty, ee added in any ae cine dba* dp ite Sialemend that he wis a spy, hey: Mink thai if he was a spy, anyebotig) Bonitter said about Burgess and Maclean was somice Fung which dif oor ment nype than the smatics! sim if damages, hull oh whe other hand. they might think a moderate sem Warranicd. The jury rciurned the following answers to the questions: 1, Yes; 2, No.; 3, No: 4, Yes; 5, None. PAYMENT OUT OF ONE PENNY 4r. Salmon asked for judgment for the fendanis wilh cosis. He said that he also ed for the payment out of the sum of F ies into Caurt. ; Is Lornsnir gave judgment for the * defendants with casts and made an arder far the payment out of the sum of money in Court to the defendants’ salicitars, Solicitors-—Messrs. — Eejward= = Davies Nelson Co.; Messrs, Le*: ( & Lewis and {Mitkpne MOMTALITHAVY T1109 |