Editor Found Guilty (Press, 12 July 1969)

On 11 July 1969, Laurence Gandar, the editor-in-chief of the Johannesburg newspaper “Rand Daily Mail,” and senior reporter Benjamin Pogrund were found guilty of publishing false information about conditions in South African prisons. This conclusion was reached after a lengthy trial that began on 1 November 1968, centring on articles published in June and July 1965, which claimed there were instances of assaults, sodomy, and unsanitary conditions in various prisons. Throughout the 88-day trial, the prosecution presented 105 witnesses, while the defence brought forward 16. Both Gandar and Pogrund maintained their innocence, pleading not guilty. The courtroom was filled with a significant audience, including a large contingent of Africans who were segregated from white spectators, as well as numerous international diplomats and journalists. The allegations were specific to reports regarding prisons in Port Elizabeth, Pretoria, and Cinderella Prison located near Johannesburg. The Judge, Petrus Cillie, highlighted that the prosecution successfully demonstrated the inaccuracy of 17 claims related to the Port Elizabeth and Pretoria prisons. He also noted that a doctor at Cinderella Prison had opted to treat suspected malingerers with an electric therapy machine rather than diagnosing them properly, which the Judge described as an unfortunate decision. Despite the convictions, Judge Cillie indicated that there was no evidence that Gandar and Pogrund had knowingly published false information, nor was there proof of any payments made to informants. However, the Judge concluded that the pair failed to take reasonable steps to verify the claims presented in their articles, leading to their conviction. Following the verdict, the court adjourned to the afternoon to hear pleas in mitigation before determining the appropriate sentences. Gandar and Pogrund face up to two years in prison or a fine of 280 South African rand for each of the two charges against them. The case has attracted considerable attention due to the newspaper's role as an outspoken critic of the South African Government's domestic policies, and the implications of the trial extend beyond the individuals involved to wider issues concerning press freedom in the country.

The text on this page is created, in the most part, using Generative AI and so may contain errors or omissions. It is supplied to you without guarantee or warranty of correctness. If you find an error or would like to make a content suggestion please get in contact

The text on this page is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 New Zealand