Lee v Wilson

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.