COOHL DET
2
causing public alarm that the Crown must prove. I would remind
Members that a mere allegation of falsity is not sufficient.
Truth does not become a lie simply because the Government says it
is a lie. I would remind Members that the expressions 'false
news'
'likely', 'public alarm' are well understood - but of
course they are all elements that the proseuction must prove
beyond all reasonable doubt.
3.
The question before the Committee is essentially a very
simple one. It is whether the definition of the offence of publishing false news should have an additional ingredient added
to it, namely that the prosecution should have to prove that the
defendant knew that the news was false or was reckless as to the
falsity of the report.
4.
It is said that the proposed new section 27 is contrary
For the reasons I gave earlier,
to the spirit of the common law.
I do not accept that that is so.
Offences of strict liability do
exist in the law and they exist in the common law relating to the press. Mr Lee has given you many examples of offences that require proof of a mental element. I will just give you two examples of common law offences relating to the press, offences
of strict liability.
5.
The first is the law of contempt of court, a common law offence. That offence strictly requires the press not to publish
anything which might prejudice pending proceedings. require proof of intent and indeed there is no defence.
It does not
/...3