Observations
Sir: Mr Peter Carter-Ruck's letter (29 June) is disingenuous, not to say tenden- tious, on several points. For a start, he compares the Observer's circulation figure in 1980, when only two quality Sundays were being published (the Sunday Times closed down for 11 months), with a figure in 1991, when there are four (recently five). He attributes the fall in circulation (as it happens, our circulation is currently rising) to an historic 'move to the Left' (left of Garvin, perhaps, but surely not of David Astor), and to our failure to meet the exorbitant libel claims of his clients at the first time of asking.
If the libel records of all newspapers were revealed, I doubt if the Observer's would be anywhere near the worst. I am ready to apologise promptly when the paper has plainly been in error. But in most cases, as Mr Carter-Ruck knows well, the facts are disputed and it takes time to establish the truth. Sometimes, the libel laws being what they are, a newspaper is obliged to apologise and pay damages for reasons of commercial prudence even when it believes it has published the truth.
We printed a correction soon after Mrs Edwina Currie complained. When this was rejected as inadequate by Mr Carter-Ruck, we fought the case because we believed (and were so advised) that what we had published, a quotation from an actress describing the part she was playing, was not defamatory of Mrs Currie. The jury thought otherwise; we accept that. Mrs Currie herself accepted that no libel was intended. Mr Carter-Ruck seems to hanker for a world in which newspapers cave in, against their own legal advice, simply because he picks up a telephone or writes a letter.
He reports me as saying that one of his letters in the Currie case was 'outrageous', and quotes selectively from it to show how reasonable he was. He doesn't go on to quote the part of the letter I found out- rageous and which prompted me to say in court: 'The suggestion that Mr Carter- Ruck is well known for reaching limited libel settlements left me speechless.'
Mr Carter-Ruck claims that his animus against the Observer derives from concern at its supposed lack of standards. I suspect it derives from other, more personal causes: that we have drawn repeated atten- tion to his behaviour in the Derek Jameson libel case; that we have chosen not to re-engage his own services on legal mat- ters; and that we continue to resist the unreasonable demands he makes for our money. His letter serves only to stiffen our resolve on all counts.
Donald Trelford Editor, The Observer, Chelsea Bridge House, Queenstown Road, London SW8
Previous page
