Day 177 - 26 Oct 95 - Page 32
1 The other passages in Skuse v. Granada TV to which we would
2 draw your Lordship's particular attention are number 4 on
3 page 8, which I do not need to read -----
4
5 MR. MORRIS: Sorry, which one?
6
7 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Skuse v. Granada TV again now.
8
9 MR. MORRIS: Number 4.
10
11 MR. RAMPTON: I have got back to Skuse v. Granada TV. 4 in
12 brackets between C and D on page 8: "The court should not
13 be too literal in its approach."
14
15 MR. MORRIS: Sorry, page 8?
16
17 MR. RAMPTON: Yes.
18
19 MR. MORRIS: I have not got any page numbers.
20
21 MR. RAMPTON: It is 4 in brackets.
22
23 MR. MORRIS: I have Morgan v. Odhams Press Limited in number 4.
24
25 MR. JUSTICE BELL: It is divider number 1, the case of Skuse v.
26 Granada TV, page 8, paragraph 4 in brackets.
27
28 MR. RAMPTON: The Master of the Rolls there sets out the very
29 familiar words of Lord Devlin in Lewis v. Daily Telegraph
30 Limited. I will read that now so that when I come to Lewis
31 I need not go back to it. It is from page 277 of Lewis v.
32 Daily Telegraph [1964] A.C. 234.
33
34 "My Lords, the natural and ordinary meaning of
35 words ought in theory to be the same for the
36 lawyer as for the layman, because the lawyer's
37 first rule of construction is that words are to
38 be given their natural and ordinary meaning as
39 popularly understood. The proposition that
40 ordinary words are the same for the lawyer as
41 for the layman is as a matter of pure
42 construction undoubtedly true. But it is very
43 difficult to draw the line between pure
44 construction and implication, and the layman's
45 capacity for implication is much greater than
46 the lawyer's. The lawyer's rule is that the
47 implication must be necessary as well as
48 reasonable. The layman reads in an implication
49 much more freely; and unfortunately, as the law
50 of defamation has to take into account, is
51 especially prone to do so when it is
52 derogatory."
53
54 My Lord, for the purposes of this case and this leaflet,
55 those words are of extreme importance. Put shortly, if you
56 publish what is, in effect, nothing more than a scare sheet
57 or polemic about a person or a company, you cannot really
58 be surprised if the readers draw from what you have
59 published all the most derogatory meanings that are
60 available.
