The Gazette 1982

JULY/AUGUST 1982

GAZETTE

absolute privilege and accordingly no action will lie for defamatory statements contained in such a report even though the proprietor or editor of the newspaper published the report with actual malice towards the person defamed in the report. (b) Newspaper comment on Court Proceedings Privilege attaches also to newspaper comment by way of letters to the Editor or otherwise on Court proceedings but the privilege in such instances is qualified privilege. The due administration ofjustice is undoubtedly a matter of public interest and therefore fair matter for public comment. In such cases it is of course important that what is published is comment or opinion as opposed to fact and that the comment is fair in the sense of being honest. It is important that the purpose of making the comment is the public interest rather than malice or ill will towards a particular person. The comment should not be made until after the trial is over. It would also be important to ensure that the comment would not extend to what might amount to contempt of Court. • If in doubt — Notify (Continued from P. 121) practice elsewhere as a principal — either alone or in another partnership — may find serious restrictions in cover imposed on him by his insurers. Such restrictions could include, at best, delay in obtaining cover; more serious would be an exclusion of retro-active cover in respect of his period with his former firm; the imposition of especially onerous conditions or rates ofpremium, or even a total refusal to accept the risk. He may also find himself, long after he has commenced practice as a principal in his ownright, named as a defendant in negligence proceedings against his former firm. If he is not protected by a comprehensive and effective indemnity from that firm, the potential consequences are obvious. If he is protected by an indemnity, he is still faced, at least, with the very considerable embarrassment and worry — and even innuendo — which must inevitably result from defending an action for professional negligence, even though he may have had nothing whatever to do with the case which gave rise to the claim. He may even be faced with the appalling discovery that the firm has maintained no, or insufficient, professional indemnity insurance cover and that the principal or principals cannot meet the liability. Among the various conclusions to be drawn from a consideration of this problem, several are of such fundamental importance that they merit restatement. The first is that, at the first faint whiff of a claim on foot of a professional indemnity policy, the insurer should be notified. The second, andmore general, conclusion is that no practitioner should either seek or accept a non- proprietorial "partnership" position without considering very carefully the consequences of such a step upon his future career. Thirdly, notwithstanding the most fervent verbal assurances of protection against all that might befall, no such non-proprietorial status should ever be accepted without ensuring that the firm maintains at all times an adequate level of professional indemnity insurance cover and without procuring a comprehensive and continuing indemnity from the principal or principals of the firm involved. •

to the public or be broadcast except as authorised by a direction given in pursuance of the section. The section also provides that a person, against whom a complainant may be expected to give evidence at a trial, may apply to a Judge for a direction which would have the effect of lifting the restriction where it is required for the purpose of inducing persons to come forward who are likely to be needed as witnesses and the conduct of the defence is likely to be adversely affected if the direction is not given. The section also empowers a Judge to lift the restriction where the effect would impose substantial and unreasonable restriction on the reporting of proceedings at the trial and that it is in the public interest to remove or relax the restriction — so much of the restriction as is specified in the direction shall be lifted. Section 8 provides that after a person is charged with a rape offence no matter likely to leadmembers of the public to identify him as the person against whom the charge is made shall be published in a written publication available to the public or be broadcast except (a) as authorised by a direction given by the court or (b) after he has been convicted of the offence The section makes provision for the giving of a direction lifting the restriction in somewhat similar circumstances as in the case of a complainant. It is to be noted that while there is no time limit on the duration of the restriction in the case of a complainant the restriction in the case of a person charged ceases after he has been convicted of the offence. Defamation (a) Newspaper reports of Court Proceedings. Section 18( 1) of the Defamation Act 1961 provides as follows: 'A fair and accurate report published in any newspaper or broadcast by means of wireless telegraphy as part of any programme or service provided by means of a broadcasting station within the State or in Northern Ireland of proceedings publicly heard before any court established by law and exercising judicial authority within the State or in Northern Ireland shall, if published or broadcast contemporaneously with such proceedings, be privileged.'

Section 18(2) provides that nothing in subsection 1 shall authorise the publication or broadcasting of any blasphemous or obscene matter. The report need not be a verbatim report provided it is fair and accurate. The privilege attaching to such reports once they are made contemporaneously with such proceedings is regarded as being what is known as

127