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,

Prev Next Index