Day 312 - 11 Dec 96 - Page 09
1 in 91 people, and in Smith v Houston there was a slander
2 published to a few people in a doctor's surgery.
3
4 Houston v Smith is, perhaps, for the purposes this case
5 particularly illuminating. The two passages in that, one
6 of which is actually set out on page 610 of John v MGN,
7 towards the end of the Hirst LJ judgment, can I draw
8 your Lordship's attention to them?
9
10 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Yes.
11
12 MR. RAMPTON: The first is on page 14. It is right to add that
13 in both those cases the Plaintiffs were people ----
14
15 MR. JUSTICE BELL: I go 11 -- I mean, is it purposely just the
16 odd numbers photographed?
17
18 MR. RAMPTON: No, it is not. It is just a piece of bundle in
19 the photocopying, quite honestly. Page 14 is missing.
20
21 MR. JUSTICE BELL: A number of pages missing. If I can be given
22 a full copy. I go 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 16.
23
24 MR. RAMPTON: It is absolutely hopeless. We will re-do them.
25 Can I read it?
26
27 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Just read it out.
28
29 MR. RAMPTON: I do say this, also in both those cases the
30 Plaintiffs were human beings so there was an element for
31 hurt feelings. Apart from that, what Hirst LJ said in
32 Smith v Houston was on page 14: "
33
34 With one exception, the aggravating" -- the one exception
35 does not matter for their purpose -- "factors relied on by
36 the Plaintiffs are ones which the jury took properly into
37 account, and which we should take into account as
38 substantially magnifying the damages. By far the most
39 important is the continuation of the plea of justification
40 up to and throughout the trial, which meant that the
41 Plaintiff had a significant part of the accusation
42 over-hanging him for over two years after its publication,
43 culminating in a greatly extended spread of the slander
44 from the small confines of the doctor's waiting room into
45 the public domain and full glow of publicity", reflecting
46 what Lord Diplock said which I read to your Lordship the
47 other day in Broom v Castle.
48
49 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Yes.
50
51 MR. RAMPTON: Then, my Lord, finally, right at the end of the
52 judgment on page 16, having reduced the damages from
53 £150,000 to £50,000, Hirst LJ said this:
54
55 "I should add that this amount is, in my judgment, at the
56 very top of the range for a slander of this kind, and it is
57 only appropriate because of the very grave and exceptional
58 aggravating factors to which I have referred. Had the
59 slander remained within the confines of the waiting room,
60 and still more if the Defendant had promptly apologised,
