AN INTERRUPTION IN COURT

Dominion, Volume 30, Issue 159, 2 April 1937, Page 5

AN INTERRUPTION IN COURT

“Privilege” Question

NEWSPAPERS WIN AN APPEAL

The libel action which had been stated to raise the question whether, when a newspaper publishes a report of legal proceedings containing an interruption by a stranger, that publication is covered by “privilege” was recalled in the Court of Appeal in London recently. The action, in which Air. Thomas Charles Farmer, a dental surgeon, of Euston Square, London, NAY., was the plaintiff, was tried before Air. Justice Alacnaghten and a special jury in the King's Bench Division. Air. Farmer sued Sir Charles Hyde, of New Street, Birmingham, proprietor of the “Birmingham Post,” for damages for libel, which, he alleged, was contained in a report of legal proceedings in the “Birmingham Post” of Alay 17, 1935. Other actions by Air. Farmer were consolidated with that against Sir Charles Hyde, the defendants being the Yorkshire Conservative

Newspaper Company, Limited, proprietors of the “Yorkshire Post” and “Yorkshire Evening Post,” the Western Alail and Echo, Limited, proprietors of the “South Wales Echo and Express,” and the Norfolk News Company, Limited, proprietors of the “Eastern Daily Press.” The special jury returned a verdict for the defendants. Air. Farmer appealed and Air. Martin O’Connor, on his behalf, said that at the end of Air. Farmer’s evidence in an action, and when he was the only witness who had been called, a gentleman known as Air. Davidson, the exrector of Stiffkey, jumped up and said he “wanted to contradict the many lies which had been told in court.” A’arious newspapers, Air. O’Connor said, reported the interruption, and the libel action concerned that interruption. i

His submission was that an unjustifiable interruption could not be said to be “part of the legal proceedings in the court.” Air. O’Connor said that another submission he had to make was that the verdict of the jury was due to misdirection by the judge. The Summing Up. Lord Justice Slesser said he gathered that Air. O’Connor complained of the summing-up because of the judge’s reference to Mr. Davidson’s reputation. If he could satisfy the court that the jury found against Air. Farmer on that account —that w'hat might otherwise be defamatory was not defamatory because of the reputation of the person responsible for the utterance —he would be entitled to a new trial. He added that the court would like to hear Sir William Jowitt, K.C., for the respondents, on this point, because it did not appear that the jury were told that the matter of reputation was one going to damages and not to verdict. Sir William Jowitt said the Supreme Court ruled that a new trial should not be granted unless the Court of Appeal was satisfied that some substantial wrong or miscarriage had been occasioned.

“Unfortunately,” he said, “owing to the confused nature of the summing up, it is not quite safe to say whether the jury came to their conclusion on the ground: (1) ‘We are not satisfied that these words really referred to Mr. Farmer at all’; or (2) ‘Although we think these words refer to Mr. Farmer, yet. having regard to Mr. Davidson's reputation, we think the thing is absolutely trivial.’ ” On the question of whether the report of the interruption by Mr. Davidson was “privileged,” Sir William Jowitt said newspapers were perfectly en ; titled to report what took place in open court. “Confusion.” Lord Justice Slesser, giving judgment, said Mr. O’Connor had complained of misdirection and he (the Lord Justice) thought Sir William Jowitt might also have complained about the summing-up. One point submitted by Sir William was not .put by the judge to - the jury, and, on another point, the judge unfortunately travelled beyond the submission of Sir William, and, fairly interpreted, gave the jury the impression that if they took the view that Mr. Davidson was a man of very ill-character—so much so that the damage would be only nominal—then they could find a verdict for the defendant. That was at least calculated so* to confuse the jury as to be open to grave objection.

If the matter were to end there it would be impossible to say on that confusion of summing-up that there ought not to be a new trial. Sir William Jowitt had said that there ought not to be a new trial on the ground of misdirection unless a substantial wrong bad been occasioned, and there was no substantial wrong here. He (the Lord Justice) held that argument ill-founded in the present case. It was impossible to say in this case that a substantial miscarriage of justice had not occurred, not in regard to the amount of damages which might have been awarded but because the jury had never had an opportunity of assessing damages at all. The second statutory defence, said the Lord Justice, was a complete answer to the present action. The report was admittedly fair and accurate and the application made by Mr. Davidson was clearly “in tbe course of the proceedings.” The statute consequently afforded the owners of the newspapers complete protection. Tbe other members of tbe court agreed and the appeal was dismissed.