ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF Defamation-Libel in newspaper-Publication-Description of defamed person 1934.
applicable to several-Action by some to whom description applicable. MELBOURNE,
If defamatory words, capable of relating to more than one person, are found Oct. 23, 24.
actually to disparage each of them among the respective groups of the com- munity which know them, because the words are reasonably understood to SYDNEY,
refer to each of them, then they may all maintain actions, and this notwith- Dec. 19.
standing that the writer or publisher intended to refer to still another person Starke, Dixon,
to whom his words were also capable of referring.
Decision of the Supreme Court of Victoria (Full Court): A. L. Lee v. Wilson and Mackinnon; C. Lee v. Wilson and Mackinnon, (1934) V.L.R. 198, reversed.
Arthur Lonsdale Lee and Clifford Lee each brought an action for defamation in the County Court at Melbourne against Messrs. Wilson and Mackinnon, the proprietors and publishers of a daily newspaper called "The Star.'
By his particulars of demand each of the plaintiffs alleged (inter alia) that in the issue of such newspaper for 31st October 1933, the defendants falsely and maliciously printed and published of and concerning each of the plaintiffs, and of and concerning each of them in the way of their calling, the following words:-
"PENTRIDGE PRISONER'S GRAVE CHARGE.
ALLEGED PAYMENT TO POLICE. Evidence of the payment of money to one member of the Police Force for transmission to another" (meaning the plaintiff) "was given to-day by John Francis Kelly, a long-term Pentridge Prisoner, to the Police Inquiry at its second session in Pentridge Gaol. Cross-examined further Kelly said
he rang Detective Ethell who told him that he would be able to do nothing for him. Ethell said that he thought that Detective Lee (meaning the plaintiff) "had the matter in his hands.
IT WILL COST YOU £35.
'I have seen Lee' (meaning the plaintiff) ' and it will cost you £35' said Ethell later. Kelly said that he agreed to this. Lee (meaning the plaintiff) "replied that the Police were finished with it. Campbell, Kelly said, had a talk with Lee (meaning the plaintiff) "as a result of which Kelly was handed a cheque for £132 2s. The money, Kelly continued, was distributed to its proper sources and he handed Ethell £35 saying 'Here is the money for Mr. Lee' (meaning the plaintiff).
'Mr. Smith Did you hear from Ethell or Lee (meaning the plaintiff) "what was done with that £35 ?
Subsequently I saw Ethell who said Lee' (meaning the plaintiff) was handling the inquiry said Kelly. 'Next morning he told me Lee' (meaning the plaintiff) ' would fix it up. Ethell told me Lee' (meaning the plaintiff) wanted £10.' Kelly told Mr. Smith that
[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.
[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.
[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.
Consideration
[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.
[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.
Continue reading Lee v Wilson
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Lee v Wilson [1934] HCA 60
Case
[1934] HCA 60
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Arthur Lonsdale Lee and Clifford Lee, both detectives in the Victorian Police Force, each brought an action for defamation against Wilson and Mackinnon, the proprietors and publishers of "The Star" newspaper. The dispute arose from a newspaper report detailing evidence given at a police inquiry, which alleged payments to police officers. The plaintiffs claimed the published words falsely and maliciously imputed that they had accepted bribes and committed criminal offences in the execution of their duties. The defendants raised a defence that the words complained of referred to a different police officer named Lee, who was not a detective, and not to the plaintiffs.
The High Court was required to determine whether it constitutes a defence to an action for libel that the defamatory words, which are reasonably understood by the plaintiff's acquaintances to refer to the plaintiff, were in fact intended by the publisher to refer to another existing person. The Court also considered the admissibility of evidence that the third, non-detective officer named Lee was referred to as "Detective Lee" during the inquiry.
The High Court, allowing the appeals, reversed the decision of the Supreme Court of Victoria. The Court reasoned that liability for libel does not depend on the publisher's intention to defame a specific individual, but rather on the fact that the words published are reasonably capable of being understood by those who know the plaintiff as referring to him and are defamatory. The Court applied the principle established in *E. Hulton & Co. v. Jones*, holding that if defamatory words are published which readers, knowing the circumstances, would reasonably think to be defamatory of the plaintiff, the publisher is liable, regardless of whether they intended to refer to the plaintiff or another person. The Court found that the evidence rejected by the Supreme Court was not a defence, as the publication was reasonably understood to refer to the plaintiffs, and therefore, the plaintiffs were entitled to maintain their actions.
The High Court ordered that the appeals be allowed, the judgment of the Supreme Court of Victoria be set aside, and the judgments of the County Court in favour of each plaintiff be restored.