Lawrence v Lightburn

• Jurisdiction: Belize
• Judge: Georges, J.A.
• Judgment Date: 05 March 1981
• Neutral Citation: BZ 1981 CA 5
• Court: Court of Appeal (Belize)
• Date: 05 March 1981
• Docket Number: Civil Appeal No. 4 of 1980

Court of Appeal

Georges, J.A.

Civil Appeal No. 4 of 1980

Lawrence

and

Lightburn

Defamation - Libel and Slander

Tort - Damages — Libel and slander — Exemplary damages

Tort - Damages — Libel and slander — Quantum

Facts: Appellant publisher published report that respondent hale and hearty after respondent's counsel made application for adjournment at trial of appellant for libel on ground that respondent — Plaintiff was ill. Trial Judge refused to admit report on resumption of the hearing after counsel for respondent sought to tender it as evidence of malice — Whether Trial Judge erred in refusing to admit report as evidence of malice

Facts: Respondent cross — Appeals on ground that appellant's persistence in his plea of justification was sufficient to found evidence of aggravation — Whether persistence in a plea of justification sufficient to found evidence of aggravation

Facts: Whether award granted respondent for damages for newspaper libel published by appellant should be in line with comparable cases of political libel in Barbados and Guyana — Factors to be considered in making an award of this nature

Held: Persistence must be an unreasonable persistence — Finding that the same considerations apply to the absence of an apology — Cross — Appeal dismissed.

Held: Subsequent publications which may go to show malice of a person publishing a libel are admissible for that purpose — Appeal dismissed.

Held: Award adequate — Appeal and Cross — Appeal dismissed.

Georges, J.A.

1 The appellant who is the editor, printer and publisher of the newspaper “The Reporter” appeals against a judgment awarding damages against him for an article in that newspaper dated December 4, 1977, which was found to be libellous of the respondent.

2 The article complained of read as follows:

“Headline: “YPF LEADER BASHED AND STABBED RAY LIGHTBURN AND GANG ARE SUSPECTS”

Article: “One of the loaders and founders of the Youth Popular Front movement 23 year old Bobby Smith, was attacked and stabbed with an ice-pick shortly before midnight on Thursday following a huge pre-election rally sponsored by the YPF at the Court-house wharf.

Reports say he was attacked by a group of young men one of whom bashed him over the forehead with a piece of lumber while another stabbed him in the abdomen with an ice-pick. His attackers fled, leaving him bleeding in the street with severe stomach cramps.

The attack took place on East Canal Street between Orange and Church. It has been established beyond a doubt that it was a political crime.

Smith, who was hospitalised and had to take an operation to patch up his punctured intestines, later related that he heard someone call his name “Bobby”. He looked around to receive a terrific blow across his forehead, causing his knees to buckle. Then he felt the puncture-wound in his abdomen.

Earlier Smith and a party of friends were at the Melting Pot Disco celebrating their successful meeting when Ray Lightburn and his gang of paid henchmen walked in and looked around. They each had a beer and walked out.. Lightburn, an associate of gunman Silky Stuart, has become the prime suspect in the bash “and juk” incident, the first violence to erupt in the current political campaign.

‘We have not reported the matter to the police’ a YPF spokesman told the Reporter, ‘because we have no faith in their effectiveness under the present circumstances.’ It is not known whether Smith recognised any of his attackers.”

3 The statement of claim averred in paragraph 3 that the words published in their natural and ordinary meaning meant and were understood to mean:

• (a) that the respondent was the leader of a criminal gang of paid henchmen;

• (b) that the appellant and his said gang were the suspected attackers who bashed and stabbed Bobby Smith, one of the leaders of the Youth Popular Front;

• (c) that the said attack was a politically motivated crime and that the prime suspect of this crime was the appellant.

4 Two extended meanings were also pleaded in paragraph 4:

• (a) that the respondent is guilty of organising and participating in a shameless and vicious assault and wounding on a young political opponent;

• (b) that the plaintiff was the prime suspect to the crime but that the police, despite the evidence, would not arrest him.

5 The appellant in his defence admitted the publication but denied that the words bore any of the meanings set out in the statement of claim. Further, he stated that the words without the said meanings were true in substance and in fact.

6 The claim was one for exemplary damages on the ground that the publication was motivated by malevolence and spite towards the respondent. The appellant averred that he was a candidate for the opposition party in City Council elections which were held on December 7, (three days after the publication) that the appellant vas a former trade union leader closely identified with the People's United Party, and that the article was completely without foundation and calculated to embarrass the respondent and the party which he was associated thus influencing the results of the election. The appellant denied this and stated that the article was published in good faith and was based on an interview between himself and the victim of the attack, Bobby Smith.

7 The appellant himself admitted in cross-examination that in their natural and ordinary meaning the words published did convey that the respondent and his gang were the suspected attackers who had bashed and stabbed Bobby Smith; one of the leaders of the Y.P.F., and that the attack was politically motivated and that the prime suspect of the crime was the respondent.

8 It was argued for the appellant that it was not libellous to say of someone that he was suspected of having committed a crime. The learned judge appears to have rejected this contention and rightly so. The test is not one of pure logic and involves the prediction of the likely reactions of reasonable persons. Friends and acquaintances may well shun a person who is known to be suspected of a serious crime. His reputation will almost certainly fall in the estimation of reasonable right-thinking persons even when guilt is not yet established. The well known aphorism that there is no smoke without fire is rooted in experience and it is on that basis that the statement that one is suspected of having committed a crime will be damaging though not as damaging as the statement that one has committed a crime. The learned judge however, held that the publication that the respondent was a suspect had been justified.

9 The learned judge went on to hold that the words were capable of bearing the extended meaning averred in paragraph 4 (a) that the respondent had in fact committed the crime. It followed from this that the natural meaning set out in paragraph 3 (a) that the respondent was the leader of a criminal gang of paid henchman had also been established.

10 In determining whether or not the article did convey the extended meaning averred, the learned judge applied the test laid down in Capital and Counties Bank v. Henty (1882) 7 A.C. 745 — what meaning would the article convey to the ordinary man

11 This aspect of the law of libel was considered at some length in Lewis v. Daily Telegraph (1964) A.C. 234. Lord Reid quoted with approval the words of Lord Halsbury in Nevill v. Fine Art and General Insurance Co. Ltd. (1897) A.C. 68 at pp.72–3:

“What is the sense in which any ordinary reasonable man would understand the words of communication so as to expose the plaintiff to hatred or contempt or ridicule ………. it is not enough to say that by some person the words might be understood in a defamatory sense …………”

12 Having stated that the test was the meaning which the article complained of would convey to the ordinary man, the learned judge added: “Further I bore in mind that the ordinary man is not likely to distinguish between hints...