◆ SpookStack

Sia Si. Waa dole aa * QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION JUDGMENT FOR NEWSPAPER IN “SPY” ACTION STRAUSS y. ASSOCIATED NEWSPAPERS LTD. Before Mz. Justice Onucran and ¢ Jury Juczment 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 Ltd respect of the principal item upon the front page of the Daily Mail for June 13, 1951, under the headlines “Paris holds spy Strauss" and“ Third man link with missing diplomats 7" Mr. Richard O'Sullivan, QC, and M, Roland Brown appeared for the plainit writ Salmon, Q.C., and Mr. Helen for the defendants, . SUMMING-UP MAHcstice Onmexo. summing un, sal Yl, defining it in a general way, w lee P faint. A man’s reputation was somt Titpa hich he was enlitied to have guarded, inti said that his reputation hae bey fore first, because the Daily Myf sagithat he was a spy, and secondly. becaused theyeuid that in that capacity as @ spy ly hadldtsisted in some way or other in enablini y thebReo missing diplomats, Burgess ai Maan. 10 escane from this country a ret behind the iron curtain. The plaint that he had been falsely accused of being a spy and in assisting in that escape, \ir $e defendants satisfied them, the jury, ‘on fhe evidence that the plaintiff was a spy, | then inat was now defamaton because it was truce’ if the defendants failed 10 satisfy them of that, then the whole document 2s defamatory. : plaintiff said that the article went lurter and said that he was the link with nssing diplomats. He (his afar KE that the words were capable of beariny Hhaq meaning and the jury had to decidé | rhether in fact the article, read as a whol Brant that ihe piaintifl was the missing lin] Phether it meant, as the defendants sai ‘more than that he was the sact of mal ve been. in all the circu . Tf that was what the wordy mbént. that would be a defamatory state- mabnt of the plaintiff unless the defendants bowid satisfy them, and there was fivadence. that he was the fink wih the ats, 1e aoaf they came to the conclusion that the Dlaintitl was a spy, and that ihe words meant he was the sort of man who might have the link with the diplomats, then the Adtendanis said that the words ‘were not @éfamatory in themselves because they were Saic comment on a maiter of public interest, pisintifl invited hm this Lordship) to before them whether ‘that in ilself was famatory. if it were said of a man that fee was a spy. and nor only that he was a ‘py bin that he assisted in the escape of the diplomats, that was adding defamation to defamation. but the defendants said that , the words were not a stalement of fact but merely a comment, and that on the facis it” Twas not unreasonable to say, as comment on a matter which affected the public, that he was the sort of man who might have {assisted the diplomats. The evidence as to whether or mat the Plaimifi was a spy was almost entirely that ‘of the plan himself. He had said that he [Was not because what he was doing was to make ris on political Movements which Iencopad froanincadea pers! echo ttebtoraich bfirthe “enfeuthation sWesticasly muaibvalodd + Maybodpy and creks! 4c o10se bemtodaingbany sped crsbleranto ony laxterog lenuqennos orp Apt pa PEO tA teat ‘ne BREKBHGURE ees AB," | They” woutd rethember that "tit erdst- examination the plaintiff had said that he knew that pressure would be put on the relatives ia Czechoslovakia of Cecchoslo- vakian éutigrés who were known to be acting in an anti-Communist way. and the back | aground for the defendants’ accusation was thal. in spite of that kaowledpe, he undertoak aprenon from time (9 lime on members of p Crechslovakian community in this poumry, He admitted that it was {3m by a member of the Crochosk Embassy that he was in @ position to get int uch with the C7echoslovakians wh leaee to the right. and that, having done that. he could report to the Embassy on what those raphe did. Bite. was no dauht that that was what the ‘The defendants said that on that dence he was a spy of the worst possible Miracter because it was his husiness (0 worm way into the confidence of people and in Id report about them to their encmics., ‘They, the jury, might think that if that wap] {what the plaintiff did. he had found a most ‘unpleasant way of earning his living. They might think it unlikely that a mun could go omirom 1945 until [950 or 595} piving false] p information Jo the Prague Government in| return for sonic £40 to £50 a-manth without! + ne check being made as to its accuracy “LIKE A NOVEL" Piney might ask themselves why, if what pee was doing was above board, he had! ‘ado: ' Ns reparts of which they had heard. andi | NB might think that it aimose read Tike}; Aasovel by Phillips Oppenheim. Was that{| what people did if they were not acting in| { @ secre! manner? Why did the instructions! come on microfilms ? “The defendamis to satisfy them (he j as a spy: if the clearty. in calbng war defamatory. The next question was whether or not Te words meant not oniy that he was a spy hula spy who was in association with the missing dipiomats. They must not merely consider the question mark in the beadtine. but fook at the article as a whole, What did they think 2 Did it give them| ciation / SP} (Ani .f died reciable, aay \e| eertemem ti he wks a et 18) BOhtirer TUE whiel did soy merit r 1 Mieprne MOOT ALITHAYV peitiai ip anid Gat 1 lowing’ were the questions which he would put tote jury: 1. Apart fram-the reference te the missing [sti t were the words true in substance id in fact—that was, chat the plaintifl was algry and had been held by the Paris police? | - Did the words of the article mean that uy Pl iif was associated with the missing lomats, rcading it as comman-sense jofPinary men and women would ? path. IC Yeu" were the words defamat i they hid the plaintiff up to. hi rifficule, and contempt: did they bl reputation further in ihe estimati friends ? . Were they fair comment ? . Damages ? r. nthe question of damages, a maq itled to compensation if his repu fatsely impugned by other was said that he was a SPY, «that might he wid ta ous. If they came jo the tthe aint was’ py. th aunt he was not entiticd to di because nothing had been fig id in that respect. Hf they concluded that the FWords meant that he was assisting2 age Maclean, they must consid cr “was entitled to substantial dai 4 Isolf they found the plainti N , they would have to consider whether U fanter allegation, if it was Mal AWink that if he was a spy, anyemmal, said about Burgess and Maclean was samc " than the smaticst sum in damages, hui, oh the other} hand. they might dunk a moderate sum warranicd. ; The jury reiurned 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 endanis wish costs. He said that he also ed for the payment out of the sum of id inta Court. . ITs) Lornsnir gave judgment for the defendants with costs and made an order for the payment out of the sum ef moncy in Court to the defendants’ solicitors, Solicitors.—Messts. Erward Davies lelson Co.; Messrs. Let; | & Lewis and “F109 | r4 ty