The Montserrat Reporter Ltd et Al v Howe

• Jurisdiction: Montserrat
• Court: Court of Appeal (Montserrat)
• Judge: Floissac, C.J.,Byron, J.A.,Liverpool, J.A.
• Judgment Date: 11 October 1993
• Neutral Citation: MS 1993 CA 6
• Docket Number: No. 2 of 1991
• Date: 11 October 1993

Court of Appeal

Floissac, C.J. Byron, J.A. Liverpool, J.A.

No. 2 of 1991

The Montserrat Reporter Ltd. et al

and

Howe

Defamation - Libel — Newspaper article published by appellant's alleging that respondent lacks integrity as a Minister, was weak of character — Whether words bore meaning attributed to them — Whether words capable of conveying defamatory meaning.

1 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT: This is an appeal against a judgment of Redhead, J. dated 21st July 1986 in which he ordered the appellants to pay the respondent $30,000.00 damages and costs for a libel contained in an article entitled “Towards a Bassie Dictatorship” published in an issue of the Montserrat Reporter dated 23rd May 1986. The Newspaper is owned and published by the No.1 appellant and printed by the No.2 appellant. The editor was the No.3 appellant and the article was written by the No.4 appellant. The respondent is a political figure, and was a Minister of Government. and “Bassie” is a name by which the Chief Minister John Osborne was known. By the time the matter came on for hearing his Government had been defeated in general elections and the respondent had lost her seat.

The Grounds of Appeal

2 The grounds of appeal eau be conveniently summarised as follows:

1

That the judge's finding as to the meaning of the words complained of, was incorrect. 2. That some of the words complained of were incapable of being defamatory. 3. That no liability should attach to the appellants for words they attributed to rumour. 4. That the judge's findings of fact were unjustified.

3 The appellant through counsel specifically told the court that there was no appeal against the amount of the damages, after it was pointed out to that this was not one of his ground of appeal.

4 The trial proceeded on the basis that the words complained of did refer to the respondent but that they were fair comment on a matter of public interest. The learned trial judge found that on the evidence the appellants failed to justify their allegations of fact and did not prove that there was any foundation for the allegations made against the respondent and consequently the plea of fair comment failed entirely. In disposing of the argument that the courts must allow great latitude to criticism of politicians and other people in public life he relied on the observation of Cockburn, J. in Campbell v. Spottiswoode [1863] 122 E.R. 288 at page 293 stated:–

“It is said thin it is for the interest of society that the public conduct of public men should be criticised without any other limit than the writer should have an honest belief that what he writes is true. But it scents to are that the public have an equal interest in the maintenance of the public character of public men and public affairs could not be conducted by men of honour with a view to the welfare of the country, if we were to sanction allegations upon them made without foundation.”

The Meaning of the Words

5 The title and gist of the article as a whole indicated that it was aimed at demonstrating that the Chief Minister, John Osborne, was trying to establish a dictatorship. The words complained of were contained in two paragraphs of a very lengthy article appearing in the Newspaper, and stated as follows:

“But how can one man, elected by the people travel a course which no one agrees will John Osborne has done some work on this. He has made sure that he has transformed his Ministerial colleagues into total puppets. He has made them into willing pawns in this wicked game of chess. He dominated them totally. We must remember that at least two of his three Ministers were integral parts of the plot to replace him. This was at the height of the three Little Bay Scandals following the disclosures of Governor Dale. However he out manoeuvred them by obtaining a six month probation. He then got them to go radio Montserrat and declare his innocent of any wrong doing. He got them to pledge unswerving dedication and loyalty to him publicly. In addition the widespread rumours that they are heavily indebted to him financially has broken their resolve and morale. The fact of the matter is, they cannot now afford to oppose him in any way. They need him and they need the tax payers' salary.”

“However, there are clear signals which one discerns from the Chief Minister's behaviour, particularly over the last three weeks. It is clear At he has embarked on a course to stifle political opposition at all costs. It is clear that our civil liberties and our human rights are in danger. It is evident that this kind of behaviour coming from the head of Government spells doom to our development and that his actions will make potential investors run away from Montserrat. John Osborne has embarked on a course which will make all development efforts futile and frustrate attempts to put our people to work. He has set out to make Montserrat independent and establish a dictatorship for his own benefit. Monsterratans beware! Montserratans wake up! Do you want to be part of that Bassie Scheme.”

6 The learned trial judge found that the words in the article would have conveyed to the reasonable man that the plaintiff lacked integrity as a Minister, that she was a person of weak character totally dominated by the Chief Minister, and was only an instrument in his wicked political game; that she was dishonest because notwithstanding the fact that she was asking for his removal from the Governor had exposed his wrongdoing regarding the Little Bay Scandal she went on radio Montserrat where she stated that he was not guilty of any wrongdoing and pledged unswerving support when there was nothing to warrant her change of position; that being financially indebted to him and because of that she supports whatever he does as she cannot afford to oppose him; that she is not worthy to be a Minister because she allowed herself to be bought by the Chief Minister and cannot perform her duties as a Minister objectively because of her indebtedness to him, and his domination of her.

7 The appellants contended that it was incorrect to hold that the words bore the meaning that the plaintiff lacked integrity as a Minister, was of weak character, a dishonest person totally dominated by the Chief Minister and an instrument in his wicked political game. They also contended that the article did not bear the meaning that she was indebted to the Chief Minister and had allowed herself to be bought by him.

8 It has been long established that the, meaning of the words complaining of is to be determined by an objective test, that is the meaning in which the ordinary reasonable man would understand them, rather than the meaning intended by the man who published the words or the meaning he attached to them. [ Capital and Countries Bank v. Henty (1882) 7 App. Cas. at 745.]

9 In the words of lord Morris in Jones v. Skelton [1963] 1 W.L.R. 1370 at 1371:

“The ordinary and natural meaning of words relay be either the literal meaning or it may be implied or inferred or an indirect meaning; any meaning that does not require the support of extrinsic facts passing beyond general knowledge hill is a meaning which is capable of being detected in the language used can he part of the ordinary and natural meaning… The ordinary and natural meaning may therefore include any implication or inference which a reasonable reader guided not by any special but only by general knowledge, and not fettered by any strict legal rules of construction would draw from the words.”

10 In his very careful and lengthy judgment, the learned trial judge went through the article sentence by sentence. In my view he applied the appropriate objective test. It seems to me that on any reading of the article the words would convey to the reasonable man the meaning attributed to them by the learned judge. I would therefore reject the grounds of appeal which challenged his findings as to the meaning of the words complained of.

Are the words capable of bearing a defamatory meaning?

11 It is well settled that the question whether words which are complained of are capable of conveying a defamatory meaning is a question of law and is therefore one calling for the decision of the court. And if the words are so capable then it is a question for the jury whether the words do in fact convey a defamatory meaning. The legal test is that an imputation is defamatory if it tends to lower the plaintiff in the estimation of right thinking members of the society generally, or as the older authorities express it exposes him to hatred, ridicule or contempt.

12 Under this general heading the appellants have urged that the allegations:

• (i) that the respondent was financially indebted to the Chief Minister and therefore could not oppose him, and

• (ii) that she had allowed herself to be bought by the Chief Minister were not libellous.

13 The issue would seem to the to be too obvious to require the support of authority. I do not think that the learned trial judge's ruling that the imputation he attribute to words are defamatory can be criticised, and I would confirm the ruling that the words complained of are capable of bearing a defamatory meaning.

The Rumours

14 The appellant argued that the assertion of the plaintiff's indebtedness attributed as it was to “rumour,(was not an allegation of fact but merely honest comment based on information the writer had gleaned from sections of the public, and no liability should attach to it or to the comments based on it.

15 I think that the law is already well established that it is no defence to defamation that one is merely repeating a rumour. ( Watkin v. Hall L.R. 3 Q.B. 396). Lord Hudson discussed the principle in Lewis v. Daily Telegraph Ltd [1964] A.C. 234 at p.274 — 275, in these words:

“It has been argued before your lordships that suspicion cannot be justified without proof of actual guilt on the analogy of the...