The Fry affair

PRESS COUNCIL RANDOLPH S. CHURCHILL

It all started nearly four years ago. Mr Quentin Crewe, whom I did not know, wrote to tell me that his friend, Mrs Camilla Fry, whom I had not met, had been disgracefully attacked in two articles in the Daily Sketch, which I do not read. Crewe told me that he had been in correspondence with his friend Lor4,Rother- mere, the Daily Sketch's proprietor, with a view to obtaining a public apology. Rothermere gave Crewe no satisfaction and suggested on 29 June that Mrs Fry's best course was to raise the matter with the Press Council.

I came up to London to meet Mrs Fry and hear her story first hand. Having written it down I went through it with her phrase by phrase, sentence by sentence. I was convinced she was telling the truth and—which might prove important—that she would be a credible witness in the box. 1 also, with her consent, reported the whole matter to Lord Devlin, the chairman of the Press Council, sending him a copy of my article which appeared in the SPECTATOR on 26 June 1964.

Meanwhile, Mr Peter Wightman, who had written the second article in the Daily Sketch, issued a writ for libel against the SPECTATOR and myself on 26 June 1964, the day that my article was published. The matter thus became sub judice and the Press Council felt inhibited from acting: the complaint went into cold storage.

Meanwhile, Mrs Fry. realising that the matter was going to be fought out in the courts, rang me up and asked if there.was any reason why she should not issue a writ against the Daily Sketch and Wightman. I said I thought it a capital idea but she had better consult good libel solicitors. Thus a writ was served on Wightman and the Daily Sketch. A writ was also served upon Lord Rothermere himself but was withdrawn when his solicitors indicated that if he were joined in the suit, they would take it up to the House of Lords since it would involve the question of a company chair- man's liability for the torts of a subsidiary's employee. Mrs Fry is not a rich woman and felt unable to pursue this course. Messrs Oswald Hickson. Collier and Co, who were acting for Mrs Fry, pressed her suit vigorously. Even so, it was exactly two years later on 26 June 1966 that a settlement of Mrs Fry's case was announced in the High Court. The terms in- volved damages of £5,000 and full indemnity costs for Mrs Fry.

But what of Mr Wightman, whose action against the SPECTATOR and myself still hung over our heads? First, we heard that he had left the Daily Sketch and had gone to work for Southern Television, in which Associated Newspapers, which owns the Daily Sketch, has a substantial holding. Then something appeared in the press to the effect that he had gone off on a treasure hunt to the Caribbean. No more was heard from his solicitors but eventually on 28 February 1967 the SPECTATOR and myself got the action struck out 'for want of prosecution.' Costs were awarded against Wightman but neither he nor his solicitors appeared in court.

So far, the SPECTATOR and myself have not been able to recover our costs. It seems almost incredible, but we have been unable to get in front of a taxing master to have our costs taxed. This is a necessary preliminary to recovering them but, as it is part of the legal process, it naturally takes a very, very long time.

I suddenly remembered the Press Council and on 24 November 1967 wrote to Lord Devlin asking him to investigate my original com- plaint which had laid dormant for so long. The Press Council is not quite so leisurely as the law courts. Eventually, on Tuesday 9 April 1968, it issued its report, which strongly

condemns the Daily Sketch. One passage raises a doubt: 'On the issues of intrusion the Press Council's investigations did not produce any indication that the journalists exceeded what was expected of them by the newspaper. The standards of 1964, however, as stated by Mr Wightman, would appear no longer to apply and it seems very unlikely that this kind of interview would now take place.'

It is noteworthy that the Press Council makes no condemnation of Wightman. The report seems to imply that the Press Council does not expect journalists to have any personal honour or integrity. Their only loyalty is to the stan- dards of their employers. I find this attitude of the Council a slur upon the individual journalist. Many of them have much higher standards of honour than their editors or pro- prietors. Does Lord Devlin think all journalists .1-e mercenary hacks with no consciences of heir own?

Many years ago before the Press Council v‘as set up I remember an animated discussion at Lord Rothermere's Warwick House as to how the press would =react to the activities of the Press Council when it came into being. Lord Rothermere, who is at heart a man of liberal sympathies, did not seem very concerned, but the late Lord Kemsley, who was present, waxed vehement and indignantly said that none of his papers—and that at that time included the Daily Sketch—would print a line of any condemnation that came from the Council. In the light of all this, I am pleased to report that the Daily Sketch was one of three papers to publish the Press Council's ajudication on the Fry affair in full.

The following is the full text of the Press Council's statement

Two articles on the matrimonial affairs of Mrs Camilla Roy, published four years ago, long before the dissolution of her marriage to Mr Jeremy Fry, are the subject of an adjudication issued by the Press Council today.

The complaint was first presented to the Press Council in June 1964 but the Council was unable to consider it until after two lawsuits to which the articles gave rise had been disposed of.

The Daily Sketch of 10 June 1964 published on its front page a picture of Mrs Jeremy Fry described as 'dancing with a friend at a recent ball.' The caption was headed 'My marriage: by Mrs Jeremy Fry.'

The article on page 3 under the heading 'Why we've parted—by Mrs Jeremy Fry' began: 'Mrs Camilla Fry talked to me last night about her husband, Jeremy—and his friendship with the wife of a leading sculptor. . . . The couple have not lived together . . . for months. Last night 33-year- old Mrs Fry explained why.' The article went on to give three quotations from, statements alleged to have been made in an interview with Mrs Fry on matrimonial matters.

On the following day the Daily Sketch published a feature story attributed to Peter Wightman under the heading 'Why this break-up saddens Margaret: The article referred to two divorce petitions, one of them by Mrs Fry and the other by Mr Lynn Chadwick which, the story said, named 'gay man-about-town Jeremy Fry' as co- respondent. The article referred to Mr and Mrs Fry as living at 'a palace home near Bath,' where Princess Margaret and Lord Snowdon were regular guests.

The article continued: 'When I talked to Mrs Fry at her new home in Earls Court, she con- firmed her marriage had been "going wrong" for months.' The article went on to say that Mrs Fry 'refused to talk of Princess Margaret's attempts to save her marriage' but that the writer could reveal that the Princess had 'often phoned their home to discuss the situation.' The article also stated that Princess Margaret and Lord Snowdon had spent several weekends at Lypiatt Park with the Chadwicks.

The SPECTATOR of 26 June 1964 published an article by Mr Randolph S. Churchill of Stour, East Bergholt, Suffolk, the complainant, headed 'The Daily Sketch and Mrs Fry.' It described the two articles in the Daily Sketch as 'two of the vilest and most intrusive stories . . . in almost every detail fabricated.' It asserted that the front-page pic- ture, described as taken 'at a recent ball,' was in fact three years old and taken at the Bath Festival. It said that Mrs Fry did not talk to anyone on the Daily Sketch about her husband or her marriage, though they tried to bully her into doing so. Mr Jeremy Fry, described as 'man about town,' was in fact a serious and successful en- gineer. The 'palace home near Bath' was a com- paratively small house. Princess Margaret had not spoken to either Mr or Mrs Fry about their matri- monial troubles and did not know anything about the divorce until it was virtually all settled. Lord Snowdon had spent only one night at Lypiatt Park and Princess Margaret had never stayed there at all.

On 25 June Mr Randolph Churchill sent an advance copy of his article in the SPECTATOR to the Press Council and complained of the articles in the Daily Sketch as 'a gross intrusion into people's private lives and a flagrant breach of journalistic ethics.' On 26 June Mr Wightman issued a writ for libel against Mr Churchill and the SPECTATOR. On 29 June Mrs Fry issued a writ for libel against the Daily Sketch. In March 1967 Mr Wightman's action was dismissed for want of prosecution and he was ordered to pay the costs. In June 1966 the Daily Sketch paid Mrs Fry £5,000 damages in settlement of her action. At the pro- ceedings at which the settlement was announced counsel for the Daily Sketch said that his clients acknowledged that the articles should never have been published in such a form as to suggest that Mrs Fry was responsible for their contents. They expressed their sorrow for the distress caused and their sincere apologies.

Before the Press Council, the case for the com- plainant was that when approached outside her house by Mr Wightman and told he was from the Daily Sketch, Mrs Fry said 'Then I am cer- tainly not going to speak to you' and that apart from correcting a statement by Mr Wightman that her son was desperately ill, Mrs Fry refused to make any statement. She also refused to allow a photographer to take her photograph, although, as she went indoors, a flashlight photograph was taken of her back. It was contended that one of the men started to knock on her door and one telephoned her from a nearby call-box and that for the next two hours there was banging on her door every few moments.'

The case for the Daily Sketch was that if there was intrusion it was very much regretted. The newspaper had published the statement made in open court. Mr Howard French, editor, expressed regret to the Council for any inaccuracy but said he did not accept all the allegations made in Mr Churchill's article in the SPECTATOR.

Oral evidence was given to the Council by Mrs Fry of Seend Lodge, Melksham, Wilts, Mr Peter Wightman of 20- Thatched Cottage, South- ampton Road, Lyndhurst, Hants, and Mr M. McKay, a freelance photographer working for the Daily Sketch, of 39 Crownfield Avenue, New bbry Park, Essex.

Mr Wightman denied that the interview with Mrs Fry was fabricated. She seemed quite happy to talk to him and chatted to him on the pavement outside her house for several minutes in a relaxed and friendly way; she could quite easily have walked into the house at any time. The interview, he said, was not hostile but neither was Mrs Fry volunteering information quite freely. He was ask- ing her questions and she was either replying or not replying: one had to prompt her. Although he did not make notes, the quotations were, he thought, the actual words used. Mr Wightman said he now knew it was not Princess Margaret but Lord Snowdon who had visited Lypiatt Park. The in- formation that Princess Margaret had telephoned the Fry home came from another reporter who was convinced it was true.

Mr Wightman said he had been in journalism since 1951 and had never before had a complaint made against him. He contended that the com- plaint was being considered by 1968 standards, whereas since 1964 there had been a dramatic change in interviewing. Today a reporter would not be assigned to cover the kind of news story which had given rise to the complaint.

Mr McKay, who tendered an apology for any inconvenience caused, said he had interpreted a gesture by Mrs Fry as meaning he could take a photograph. He had taken the flashlight picture of her back but he had not knocked on her door.

The Council's adjudication was: While the Press Council reaffirms the general principle that it does not seek to supersede or supplement the administration of legal justice, which is a matter for the courts, it recognises that in this complaint there is an important professional as well as a legal element. On the legal aspect, satisfaction has been given elsewhere by a settle- ment providing for payment of damages and the reading of an agreed statement and apology in open court.

On the issues of intrusion the Press Council's investigations did not produce any indication that the journalists exceeded what was expected of them by the newspaper. The standards of 1964, how- ever, as stated by Mr Wightman, would appear no longer to apply and it seems very unlikely that this kind of interview would now take place.

The oral evidence relating to the interview was conflicting. The Council does not consider that the news stories, in which inaccuracy was admitted, embodied a wholly fabricated account of the interview but is of the opinion that some brief exchanges were unduly and unethically enlarged. This complaint is upheld.

The Press Council also considers that the pave- ment interview on a private and delicate matter, judged by present standards, would amount to intrusion.

With regard to the complaint of intrusion by publication, it is noted that the editor has acknowledged that the articles should not have been published in the form in which they were, an opinion with which the Press Council fully agrees.

In this respect also the complaint is upheld and the Daily Sketch is strongly condemned both for the Manner -of the interview and the publitiation of resultant articles.