Prebble v Television New Zealand Ltd
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judgment Date | 27 June 1994 |
| Date | 27 June 1994 |
| Court | Privy Council |
Parliament - Privilege - Proceedings in Parliament - Defamation action by former minister - Defence of justification - Defendant's pleadings questioning proceedings in Parliament - Whether infringing Parliamentary privilege - Whether action to be stayed -
The defendant transmitted a television programme which made allegations against the former Government of New Zealand and referred to the sale of state-owned assets to the private sector while the plaintiff was Minister of State-Owned Enterprises. He instituted proceedings alleging that the programme bore 12 meanings defamatory of him, including that he had conspired to sell state assets to business leaders on unduly favourable terms and with the motive of obtaining donations from them to the New Zealand Labour Party. In its defence the defendant denied that the programme had any of the meanings alleged by the plaintiff but claimed that, if it did, seven of them were true. Its extensive particulars of justification relied mainly on statements and actions outside the House of Representatives but also alleged that the plaintiff and other ministers had made statements in the House calculated to mislead it, or which were otherwise improperly motivated, by suggesting that the government did not intend to sell state-owned assets when that person was conspiring to do so, and that the conspiracy had been implemented by dishonestly and improperly introducing and passing legislation. On an application by the plaintiff the judge struck out the allegations and particulars which he held might impeach or question proceedings in Parliament in contravention of article 9 of the Bill of Rights 1689.F1 The Court of Appeal upheld that decision but ordered the plaintiff's action to be stayed unless and until privilege was waived by the House and the individual members concerned, the stay to be permanent if waiver was not obtained by the plaintiff within three months. The Privileges Committee decided that the House had no power to waive Parliamentary privilege.
On the plaintiff's appeal to the Judicial Committee: —
Held, (1) that it was an infringement of Parliamentary privilege for any party to legal proceedings to question in those proceedings words spoken or actions done in Parliament by suggesting, whether by direct evidence, cross-examination, inference or submission, that they were untrue or misleading or were instigated for improper motives, even where such suggestions were advanced by way of defence to proceedings instituted by a member of the legislature; that apart from any statutory exception only Parliament had jurisdiction over such matters; that in court proceedings reference could be made to Hansard to prove as a matter of history what had taken place in Parliament, and the fact that a statute had been enacted was admissible in evidence; that, since the allegations in question showed that the defendant intended in support of the alleged conspiracy or its implementation to rely on what had been said and done in the House of Representatives and thereby to question such statements and acts contrary to article 9 of the Bill of Rights 1689, those pleadings and particulars had rightly been struck out (post, pp. 980H–981A, C–D, E).
But (2), allowing the appeal in relation to the stay, that although the interests of justice might require proceedings to be stayed if as a result of material being excluded by reason of Parliamentary privilege it would be impossible for the issues between the parties to be determined fairly, only in the most extreme cases should such a stay be granted; and that, since the exclusion of the Parliamentary material did not prevent the defendant from alleging the majority of matters upon which it relied to justify the alleged libel, in all the circumstances the plaintiff's action should not have been stayed (post, pp. 982B, G–983A).
Per curiam. If the defendant wishes at the trial to allege the occurrence of events or the saying of certain words in Parliament without any accompanying allegation of impropriety or any other questioning there is no objection to that course (post, p. 981F).
The following cases are referred to in the judgment of their Lordships:
Adam v. Ward[
Bradlaugh v. Gossett(
Burdett v. Abbot(
Church of Scientology of California v. Johnson-Smith[
Comalco Ltd. v. Australian Broadcasting Corporation(
Derbyshire County Council v. Times Newspapers Ltd.[
News Media Ownership v. Finlay[
Pepper v. Hart[
Pickin v. British Railways Board[
Reg. v. Murphy(
Rost v. Edwards[
Stockdale v. Hansard(
Wright and Advertiser Newspapers Ltd. v. Lewis(
The following additional cases were cited in argument:
Australian Capital Television Pty. Ltd. v. Commonwealth of Australia(
Derrick v. Attorney-General[
Dillon v. Balfour(
Donahoe v. Canadian Broadcasting Corporation[
Ministry of Transport v. Noort[
New South Wales Branch of the Australian Medical Association v. Minister for Health and Community Services(
Reg. v. Her Majesty's Treasury, Ex part Smedley[
Reg. v. Horseferry Road Magistrates' Court, Ex parte Bennett (No. 2)[
Reg. v. Jackson(
United States v. Helstoski(
Appeal (No. 55 of 1993) with leave of the Court of Appeal of New Zealand by the plaintiff, Richard William Prebble, from the part of the judgment of the Court of Appeal of New Zealand (Cooke P., Richardson, Casey and Gault JJ.; McKay J. dissenting in part) given on 14 May 1993 which while unanimously dismissing an appeal by the defendant, Television New Zealand Ltd., from the judgment of Smellie J. delivered on 24 June 1992 in the High Court of New Zealand (Auckland Registry), whereby he had ordered that the pleading and particulars in the statement of defence which referred to statements made and things done in the House of Representatives or before or by any committee of the House be struck out, had ordered the proceedings to be stayed unless and until privilege was waived by the House of Representatives and any individual member or former member thereof whose words or actions in Parliament were questioned in the statement of defence. The Court of Appeal had further ordered that any waiver of privilege should be within three months of the delivery of its judgment otherwise the stay would be permanent.
The facts are stated in the judgment of their Lordships.
Alan Galbraith Q.C. and Deborah Hollings (both of the New Zealand Bar) for the plaintiff.
John Tizard and Grant Illingworth (both of the New Zealand Bar) for the defendant.
Paul East, A.-G., New Zealand, and John Pike, Crown Counsel, New Zealand, as amici curiae.
27 June. The judgment of their Lordships was delivered by Lord Browne-Wilkinson.
Article 9 of the Bill of Rights 1689 precludes any court from impeaching or questioning the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament. It is well established that the article prevents a court from entertaining any action against a member of the legislature which seeks to make him legally liable, whether in criminal or civil law, for acts done or things said by him in Parliament. Thus, an action for libel cannot be brought against a member based on words said by him in the House.
In this action, the position is reversed: the libel action is brought, not against, but by a member of the legislature. The defendant wishes to allege that allegedly defamatory statements made by it were true and is seeking to demonstrate such truth by relying on things said and acts done in Parliament, i.e. the defendant wishes to use Parliamentary materials not as a sword but as a shield. The question is whether article 9 precludes such deployment of Parliamentary material.
The plaintiff was Minister for State-Owned Enterprises and held other portfolios in the fourth Labour Government of New Zealand from 1984 to 1990 (apart from a period from November 1988 to February 1990). The defendant, Television New Zealand Ltd., transmitted a programme making allegations against that government. The plaintiff alleges that the programme carried the meanings set out in sub-paragraphs (a) to (l) of paragraph 9 of the statement of claim which read:
“(a) That the plaintiff as a highly placed politician had secretly conspired with certain highly placed businessmen (‘business leaders’) and public officials, (including heads of S.O.E.'s and government departments; senior civil servants and ex-treasury officials (‘public officials’)) in New Zealand to promote and implement state asset sales with the object of providing the said business leaders with...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeUnlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Start Your 7-day Trial
- Mees v Roads Corporation
-
Reynolds v. Times Newspapers Ltd. et al., (1999) 250 N.R. 1 (HL)
...v. Associated Kent Newspapers Ltd., [1991] 1 Q.B. 88 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 87, 126]. Prebble v. Television New Zealand Ltd., [1995] 1 A.C. 321; 170 N.R. 383 (P.C.), refd to. [para. United States v. Associated Press (1943), 52 F.Supp. 362, refd to. [para. 100]. Abrams v. United States (19......
- Denis O'Brien v Dail Eirann and Others
-
Kerins v McGuinness
...may be received without breaching any privilege in order to determine what was done. See Prebble v. Television New Zealand Ltd. [1995] 1 AC 321. 8.19 The Court is, therefore, satisfied that it is permissible to hear and consider evidence concerning the conduct of the business of a committe......
-
Constitutional Limits on Bills of Rights Introduced by a State or Territory
...195 CLR 424, 471 (McHugh J) emphasises the distinction between standing orders and legislation. 76 Prebble v Television New Zealand [1995] 1 AC 321, 337, cited with approval in Egan (1998) 195 CLR 424, 490 (Kirby J). 77 Egan (1998) 195 CLR 424, 451–2 (Gaudron, Gummow and Hayne JJ), see also......
-
Regulating the Conduct of MPs. The British Experience of Combating Corruption
...their judgment. In this sensethere has been a problem of political corruption in the British Parliament for anumber of years.49 [1994] 3 All ER 407, P.C. See G. Marshall `Impugning parliamentary impunity' [1994] PublicLaw 509; A. Sharland and I. Loveland `The Defamation Act 1996 and Politic......
-
‘Only Flattery is Safe’: Political Speech and the Defamation Act 1996
...to proceedings in Parliament is in issue indefamation proceedings, he may waive for the purposes of those proceedings, so far as3 [1995] 1 AC 321, discussed by Leopold, ‘Free Speech in Parliament and the Courts’ (1995) 15 LS204.4 [1995] 1 AC 321, 338.5 See The Guardian, 22 July 1995. It is ......
-
Evidence in Charter Cases: How to Prove 'Purpose
...also New Brunswick Broadcasting Company v. Nova Scotia, supra note 29 at 374, 385. 33 Roman Corporation, ibid, at 423. 34 Ibid. 35 [1994] 3 All E.R. 407 (J.C.P.C.) at 413-414, 417-418. Evidence in Charter Cases: How to Prove "Purpose" 509 cross-examination or submission] that statements wer......