Lightburn v Lawrence et Al

• Jurisdiction: Belize
• Court: Supreme Court (Belize)
• Judge: Moe, J.
• Judgment Date: 11 June 1980
• Docket Number: Action No. 223 of 1977
• Date: 11 June 1980

Supreme Court

Moe, J.

Action No. 223 of 1977

Lightburn

and

Lawrence et al

Mr. Glenn Godfrey for the plaintiff.

Mr. Dean Barrow for the defendants.

Defamation - Libel — Newspaper article reporting stabbing incident — Whether it conveyed the meaning alleged by the plaintiff — Plaintiff compensated for injury to his character and feelings.

Moe, J.

1 The first defendant, Harry Lawrence, is the editor, printer and publisher of the newspaper “The Reporter”. There appeared in the issue of that paper for the 4th December 1977 the following article which is the subject matter of this action:–

2 “YPF Leader Bashed & Stabbed” “Ray Lightburn & Gang are Suspects”.

“One of the leaders and founders of the Youth Popular Front movement, 23 year old Bobby Smith, was attacked and stabbed with an ice-pick shortly before mid-night on Thursday following a huge pre-election rally sponsored by the YPF at the Courthouse Wharf.

3 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.

4 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.

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

6 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 & 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 recognized any of his attackers.”

7 The plaintiff now seeks to recover damages for libel which he alleges emanated from the said publication, and in consequence of which he has been much injured in his credit, character and reputation and has been brought into public scandal, odium and contempt. The plaintiff pleaded in paragraph 3 of the statement of claim that the words of the article in their natural and ordinary meanings meant, and were understood to mean: (a) that the plaintiff is the leader of a criminal gang of paid henchmen; (b) that the plaintiff and his said gang are the suspected attackers who bashed and stabbed one Bobby Smith, one of the leaders of the YPF — Youth Popular Front; (c) that the said attack on Bobby Smith was a politically motivated crime and that the prime suspect of this crime was the plaintiff. He pleaded in paragraph 4 further, or in the alternative, that the words meant or were understood to mean: (a) that the plaintiff was guilty of organizing 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.

8 In the defence filed, the first defendant admits the publication of the article, but denies that the words bore any of the defamatory meanings pleaded by the plaintiff, and says that the words are true in substance and in fact.

9 The first issue for my determination is whether the natural and ordinary meaning of the article is that which is alleged in the statement of claim and in this determination I must rely on my own interpretation of the words without the aid of any other evidence whatsoever: See Diplock L.J. in Slim v Daily Telegraph (1968) 2 W.L.R. 599.

10 In the first paragraph of the article there is a clear statement that one of the leaders of the Youth Popular Front movement, 23-year-old Bobby Smith, was attacked and stabbed with an ice-pick. In bold headlines to the article are the statements: “Y.P.F. Leader Bashed and Stabbed” “Ray Lightburn and Gang are Suspects.” In the third paragraph of the article is the clear statement, “It has been established beyond a doubt that it was a political crime” and in the penultimate paragraph there is a further clear statement “Lightburn, an associate of gunman Silky Stuart has become the prime suspect in the bash and juk incident.” I have no hesitation therefore in holding that the words of the article do in fact have the meaning pleaded in paragraph 3 (b) and (c) of the statement of claim. Further, there is no doubt in my mind that those two meanings reflect adversely on the plaintiff and tend to lower him in the estimation of right thinking members of society generally (see Sim v Stretch [1936] 2 All E.R. 1237. I therefore hold that both meanings are defamatory of the plaintiff.

11 The first defendant during trial accepted that the words in their natural and ordinary meaning meant as was pleaded in paragraph 3(b) and (c) of the statement of claim, but maintained that it cannot be interpreted to mean anything more than that the plaintiff was suspected of the crime against Smith. The question now...