ÆäÀÌÁö À̹ÌÁö
PDF
ePub

C, A's mother-in-law, who is about to marry B. If A in good faith believes the imputations to be true, this is not a libel although the imputations are false.

(4.) The mate of a ship writes a letter to A accusing the captain, B, of drunkenness and misconduct. A (who has nothing to do with the matter) forwards the letter to the owner of the ship believing the accusation to be true and thinking himself morally bound to report it. The accusation was in fact false. It is uncertain whether A has or has not libelled B.

If

(5.) A complains to the Privy Council of the conduct of a public officer whom the Privy Council had power to remove. the statement was made with express malice it is libellous.2

ARTICLE 298.

FAIR CRITICISM.

3 The publication of a libel is not a misdemeanor if the defamatory matter consist of comments upon persons who submit themselves, or upon things submitted by their authors or owners, to public criticism, provided that such comments are fair.

4 A fair comment is a comment which is either true, or which, if false, expresses the real opinion of its author (as to the existence of matter of fact or otherwise), such opinion having been formed with a reasonable degree of care and on reasonable grounds.

5 Every person who takes a public part in public affairs

submits his conduct therein to criticism.

6 Every person who publishes any book or other literary production, or any work of art, or any advertisement of goods, submits that book, or literary production, or work of art, or advertisement to public criticism.

1 Coxhead v. Richards, 1846, 2 C. B. 569. The judges in this case were equally divided, Tindal, C.J., and Erle, J., thought the letter was not a libel. Coltman, J., and Cresswell, J., thought it was.

2 Procter v. Webster, 1885, 16 Q. B. D. 112.

3 Folkard's Starkie, ch. x. pp. 254-282.

4 Hunter v. Sharpe, 1866, 4 F. & F. 983; Merivale v. Carson, 1887, 20 Q. B. C. 275; Folkard's Starkie, 278.

5 Illustration (1).

6 Illustrations (2), (3), and (4).

1 Every person who takes part in any public dramatic performance, or other public entertainment, submits himself to public criticism to the extent to which he takes part in it.

2

Illustrations

(1.) A, by direction of the Lords of the Admiralty, published to the world at large an official report made to the Lords of the Admiralty by B, which report contained matter defaming the character of C as a naval architect. C, having submitted to the Lords of the Admiralty proposals and plans for converting wooden ships of war into armoured ships of war, and the official report being part of a collection of papers intended to give the public information as to the construction of ships of war, and the publication being made in good faith, A has not libelled C.

(2.) 3 A publishes a caricature of B, an author, intending to convey the impression that his books are dull and ridiculous. A has not libelled B.

(3.) B exhibits a picture at the annual exhibition of the Royal Academy. A writes a criticism on the pictures so exhibited, and calls B's picture "a mere daub." If this expresses A's honest opinion, A has not libelled B.

(4.) 5 B publishes an advertisement about a bag sold by him and called "the Bag of Bags." A publishes a criticism on the advertisement, saying, "The title is very silly, very slangy, and very vulgar." This may be a libel if it is meant to convey an imputation of B's way of managing his business, but is not a libel if it is only an expression of A's honest opinion as to the title given by B to his bag.

1 Dibdin v. Bostock, 1823, 1 Esp. 28.

2 Henwood v. Harrison, 1872, L. R. 7 C. P. 606; but see too Merivale v. Carson, 1887, 20 Q. B. D. 275, where Bowen, L.J., disagrees with the ratio decidendi in the earlier case, so far as it turns on the existence of privilege. The value of the case as an illustration does not, however, seem to be affected.

3 Carr v. Hood, 1808, 1 Camp. 354; Folkard's Starkie, 273; and see Tabart v. Tipper, 1808, 1 Camp. 350. Carr v. Hood is a strong case, because the caricature ridiculed not only the book but the author. It is one thing to say, "This book is absurd," another to say, "You are an absurd person because you have written this absurd book." This decision would cover (within limits) common political caricatures.

4 Thompson v. Shakell, 1828, 1 M. & M. 187; Folkard's Starkie, 276. 5 Jenner v. A'Beckett, 1871, L. R. 7 Q. B. 11 ; Folkard's Starkie, 277.

ARTICLE 299.

PARLIAMENTARY PROCEEDINGS AND FAIR COMMENTS THEREON.

It is not a misdemeanor to publish such of the reports, papers, votes, or proceedings of either House of Parliament as such House of Parliament may deem fit or necessary to be published; or,

2 any extract from or abstract of such report, paper, votes or proceedings, if it is shown by the party accused that such extract or abstract was published bonâ fide and without 3 malice; or

4a fair report of any debate in either House of Parliament, though any such publication may contain matter defamatory of the character of individuals; [SUBMITTED] provided that the publisher is not actuated in making the publication by any indirect motive.

ARTICLE 300.

REPORTS IN NEWSPAPERS OF PROCEEDINGS OF TRIALS AND

6

PUBLIC MEETINGS.

The

"A fair and accurate report in any newspaper of proceedings 1 3 & 4 Vict. c. 9, s. 1. The Act contains directions as to proof of the reports, &c.; see also Stockdale v. Hansard, 1839, 9 A. & E. 1. existence of a narrower privilege than that conferred by the statute, viz., the privilege of publishing libellous papers to members of Parliament for their use, was never disputed; see Lake v. King, 1667, 1 Wms. Saunders, 132.

2 3 & 4 Vict. c. 9, s. 3.

He

3 The word "malice" must have its popular sense. In this connection, however, it has almost no meaning. A publishes an abstract of a parliamentary paper, which destroys the character of his deadly enemy B. rejoices in the prospect of ruining B's character, and so publishes both bona fide and with malice. It is absurd to say he is indictable, yet if he is not, what is the sense of the word "malice"? It seldom has any meaning except a misleading one. It refers not to intention, but to motive, and in almost all legal inquiries intention, as distinguished from motive, is the important matter. Another objection to it is that its popular meaning is not barely ill will but an ill will which it is immoral to feel. No one would describe legitimate indignation as "malice." The word is entirely avoided in the Indian Penal Code.

+ Wason v. Walter, 1868, L. R. 4 Q. B. 73.

5 Analogy of Stevens v. Sampson, 1879, 5 Ex. D. 53.

6 51 & 52 Vict. c. 64, s. 3.

publicly heard before any Court exercising judicial authority, if published contemporaneously with such proceedings, is privileged, provided that nothing in this Article authorises the publication of any blasphemous or indecent matter.

A fair and accurate report published in any newspaper of the proceedings of a public meeting, or (except where neither the public nor any newspaper reporter is admitted) of any meeting of a vestry, town council, school board, board of guardians, board or local authority formed or constituted under the provisions of any Act of Parliament, or of any committee appointed by any of the above-mentioned bodies, or of any meeting of any Commissioners authorised to act by letters patent, Act of Parliament, warrant under the Royal Sign Manual, or other lawful warrant or authority, select committees of either House of Parliament, justices of the peace in Quarter Sessions assembled for administrative or deliberative purposes, and the publication at the request of any Government office or department, officer of state, commissioner of police, or chief constable of any notice or report issued by them for the information of the public, is privileged, unless it is proved that such report or publication was published or made maliciously; provided that nothing in this Article authorises the publication of any blasphemous or indecent matter:

provided also that the protection intended to be afforded by this Article is not available as a defence in any proceedings if it is proved that the defendant has been requested to insert in the newspaper in which the report or other publication complained of appeared a reasonable letter or statement by way of contradiction or explanation of such report or other publication, and has refused or neglected to insert the

same:

provided further that nothing in this Article contained is deemed or construed to limit or abridge any privilege which existed at the time of the passing of the Newspaper Libel Act, 1888, or to protect the publication of any matter not of

i 51 & 52 Vict. c. 64, s. 4.

public concern, the publication of which is not for the public. benefit.

"Public meeting" means any meeting bona fide and lawfully held for a lawful purpose, and for the furtherance or discussion of any matter of public concern, whether the admission thereto be general or restricted.

1 No criminal prosecution may be commenced against any proprietor, publisher, editor or any person responsible for the publication of a newspaper for any libel published therein. without the order of a Judge at Chambers.

ARTICLE 301.

PUBLICATION IN A COURT OF JUSTICE.

It is not a misdemeanor for a judge, counsel, witness or party to publish anything whatever in a judicial proceeding before a Court of competent jurisdiction, or in the discharge of any military duty, even if the person publishing knows the matter published to be false, and publishes it in order to injure the person to whom it relates.

Illustrations.

(1.) 2 A, before justices of the peace, exhibits articles of the peace against B, containing false and scandalous charges against B, in order to cause B to be bound over to good behaviour. This is not a libel.

3

(2.) A in an action between himself and B, falsely and maliciously swears an affidavit, charging C with fraud. The affidavit is not a libel.

(3.) A, a military witness before a military court of inquiry. as to the conduct of B, makes in reference to the subject of that

151 & 52 Vict. c. 64, s. 8.

2 Cutler v. Dixon, 1585, Co. Pt. 4, fo. 146.

3 This is stated most strongly and explicitly in Munster v. Lamb, 1883, 11 Q. B. D. 588. Henderson v. Broomhead, 1859, 4 H. & N. 569, 576; see, too, Dawkins v. Lord Rokeby, 1873, L. R. 8 Q. B. 255, and authorities cited there. Compare Seaman v. Netherclift, 1876, 1 C. P. D. 540, for an illustration of the same principle as regards slander.

4 Dawkins v. Lord Rokeby, 1875, L R. 7 H. L. 744.

« ÀÌÀü°è¼Ó »