A case of privilege
Sir: In her column on 27 Febru- ary, Sally Vincent refers to the fact that MPS are more equal than the rest of us in the matter of im- munity from libel. Actually the im- munity goes even further than she says. Not only are they free to hold up others to 'hatred, ridicule and contempt', they enjoy this as an absolute privilege, whereas the best that ordinary mortals can .achieve is known as qualified privilege. The distinction is important as it means that such privilege as we enjoy is nullified if it can be proved that we are knowingly lying. Only an MP has the freedom to impugn while telling deliberate lies. I am moved to mention the mat- ter in response to Miss Vincent's remarks because I think it surpris- ing that so little attention was paid in the press to the recent law case in which a Labour MP (Mr Free- son) defended himself successfully in an action brought against him for libel on account of a letter he wrote on behalf of a constituent to the Law Society criticising a firm of solicitors. It seemed to me that Mr Justice Lane's verdict was a welcome vindication of the general privilege of freedom of speech and although I yield to most men in re- gard to admiration for MPS (of all parties), I certainly felt that the judge struck a blow for freedom when he said it would be intoler- able if MPS, or even ordinary people, had to look over their shoulders when they genuinely wished to bring grievances to the attention of the appropriate authorities. As I say, it seems sur- prising that the press did not make more of it.
There is, however, one further aspect which seems worth ventilat- ing though it might seem to be more appropriate in connection with the 'right of reply' about which Kingsley Amis wrote in your columns recently. When the Guardian reported the judgment in Mr Freeson's case (11 Febru- ary) they made, no doubt through an error of transmission, a rather serious mistake: 'The judge held that the letter was not actuated by malice and in any event was cov- ered by qualified privilege'. If the passage 1 have italicised were in- deed the law it would be a sorry state of affairs as it would mean that we could tell lies which dam- age others and still be immune from actions for damages, whereas the freedom to tell such lies is a special privilege applicable to mrs only when speaking in the House. Fortunately, the learned judge said no such thing. He found that Mr Freeson was not actuated by mal- ice and that was enough (indeed that was precisely what the case was all about). Now I wrote to the Guardian pointing out the error and pointing out also that a correction seemed the more neces- sary as the passage as it now stood was quite misleading and could even cause a reader at some future date to believe that he could know- ingly or recklessly utter defamatory untruths about someone without fear of an action. A misconception which could conceivably cost a reader a lot of damages one day 1 But the Guardian chose to ignore my letter (or to print a correction in some other form if my letter was not good enough). So that 'the right of reply' is something that is not conceded even by the paper that the SPECTATOR recently de- scribed as the best we've got, alas!
Small wonder that Mr Amis had difficulty with some of the others.
L. E. Weidberg 14 Templewood Avenue, London NW3
Previous page
