|
COPYRIGHT 2005 All rights reserved. Reproduced by permission of The Condé Nast Publications Inc.
Byline: Graydon Carter
Why should Dominick have all the fun? On a London morning in mid-July, a week and a half after the transit bombings, I found myself in Courtroom No. 13 of the Royal Courts of Justice as Vanity Fair defended itself in a libel action brought by the film director Roman Polanski, a fugitive from American justice who has been living in France for the past 27 years. That an American magazine could be brought to trial in an English court by a man who resides in France is one of the many vagaries of the British legal system. But more of that later.
Sadly, there are lots of things I can't say in this column without upsetting the courts. I will say this about the British courts: in rig and finery, they do not disappoint. Court No. 13 was a beautiful Victorian paneled room, decorated to the hilt with wigs, flowing robes, barristers, solicitors, and lots of "If it pleases m'Lord" this and "Yes, m'Lord" that. Very Witness for the Prosecution, except, blessedly, with air-conditioning.
In the British court system, you have two kinds of lawyers for each side: the solicitor, who gathers the facts of the case, and the barrister, who delivers the argument. During the actual trial, the solicitors sit in the front row, and the barristers sit behind them, standing when addressing the judge or the jury. Unlike American courts, where many statements are interrupted with an "Objection," followed by an "Objection sustained" or an "Objection overruled" from the judge, English courts, or at least the one I attended, are much more mannered. Barristers for both sides delivered their cases and completed their cross-examinations calmly and virtually without interruption from the other camp. It probably does not play out as well on television, but up close it's more relaxed. Unless you are the plaintiff. Or the defendant.
Where British libel law differs from American law is in the area of burden of proof. In the U.S. it lies with the plaintiff; in the U.K., with the defendant. American law requires that the plaintiff prove not only that written statements are incorrect but also, in the case of a public figure, that the publication knew this when it printed them and thus did so with malice. British law requires the defendant to prove that what was printed was correct.
Our case hinged on a few sentences buried within a 17-page story on Elaine's, the famed New York literary restaurant which celebrated its 40th anniversary two years ago. The story, which appeared in our July 2002 issue, was written by A. E. Hotchner, the distinguished journalist and author who had been Ernest Hemingway's pal and had written a memoir of their friendship. Deep into the V.F. article was an anecdote told by Lewis Lapham, the editor of Harper's magazine and an Elaine's regular. He said that the only time he remembered the place being hushed was when Roman Polanski had walked in not long after the brutal murder of his wife, the actress Sharon Tate, in August 1969. According to Lapham, the director had stopped in New York while on his way from London to Los Angeles, where his wife's...
Read the full article for free courtesy of your local library.
|
Bookmark this article
Print this article
Link to this article
Email this article
Digg It!
Add to del.icio.us
RSS
