17/10/1949

OF CRIMINAL APPEAL (INFERIOR)

HARDING WILLIAM

HON MABEL STRICKLAND O.B.E. NE ET vs JOSEPH JAMES SCOREY

N/A

-

N/A

COMPLAINT - CORPORATE BODY - FAIR COMMENT - GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS - LIBEL - LIBERTY OF THE PRESS - NEWSPAPERS

Bodies of persons having a corporate personality may sue in respect of any injury caused by a defamation to their corporate or collective reputation; and the individuals composing any such body of persons may joinly maintain such an action. Moreover, if the defamation causes an injury to the individuals concerned as natural persons, apart from and independelty of their corporate ot collective interest, then they are entitled to sue also perosnally either in the same or in a separate action. Itis true that the press is fully entitled to critise the giving out of Government contracts,a nd thus to control the commitments of public funds; but this is a totally different proposition from thatof charging a company with collusion with a Government department. If the inerimeninated matter insinuates that there has been wrongful conduct between the company obtaining a Government contract andthe Government department department concerned in the giving out of that particular contract, thatprinted matter is libellous. It is also injurious to say of a newspaper that is has stood in the way of attaining national aspirations; for it is one thing for a writer to disagree withteh policy pursued by a newspaper, and even to state that the carring out of such policy would be determental to the national interests, and it is totally different thing to make an absolute and sweeping assertion,without any relation to concrete illustrations of facts, tot eh effect that a newspaper has obstructed national aspirations, almost as a metter of principle. The defence of fair comment only protects statements of opinion, and does not certainly extend to defamtory allegations of facs. Moreover,the comment must be based on actual facts, that is, the defendant in alibel action must prove the truth of teh stated or asserted facts, if they are disputed. The intention of the defendant in alibelaction is immaterial; as liability for libel does not depend on the intentionsof teh defamer, but on the fact of the defamation. The freedom of the press is certainly one of the most treasured rights in a tru democrcy, but the press must also be responisble. Nor can the defamer advcoate the rigths to publish, almost precipitately, statements of a cahracter damaging to others, withteh intentionof withdrawing such allegations if found to be untrue. It is hardly imaginable tht nay one could ever subscribe to such a proposition. And it is, to say the least, highly illogical t o expect that the person injured by the libel should have brought forward the factsto teh noticew of teh defamer before insituting proceedings against him.