TNAG-1693-FCO40-2343-Publication-of--Spycatcher--by-Peter-Wright-in-Hong-Kong-1987 — Page 36

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