DEFAMATION CASES + STATUTE

Question 1

s.166 Broadcasting Act 1990

Answer 1

Defamatory words, pictures, visual images and gestures on radio/television or any other ‘programme service’ are to be treated as libels

Question 2

s.4(1) Theatres Act 1968

Answer 2

‘The publication of [defamatory] words in the course of the performance of a play’ is treated as libel

Question 3

Hale CB in King v Lake (1776)

Answer 3

Words written or published contain ‘more malice’ than words spoken

Question 4

Test of ‘permanence’

Answer 4

Lopez LJ in Monson v Tussauds [1894]:

“Libels are generally in writing or printing, but this is not necessary; the defamatory matter may be conveyed in some other permanent form. For instance, a statue, caricature, an effigy, chalk marks on a wall, signs or pictures may constitute a libel.”

Question 5

Monson v Tussauds [1984]

Answer 5

Wax model of plaintiff was placed in the same room as a number of actual or alleged murderers and next to the Chamber of Horrors; plaintiff had recently been tried for murder but it case was decided as ‘not proven’

HELD: Libel by innuendo

Question 6

Forrester v Tyrell (1893)

Answer 6

A person reading aloud from a defamatory letter was held to be liable in libel rather than slander; it was immaterial that he had not handed the letter around

Question 7

Youssopoff v Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Pictures Ltd (1934)

Answer 7

Plaintiff sued for libel in relation to suggestions in film, Rasputin, The Mad Monk, that she had been seduced by the figure of Rasputin.
Jury found for plaintiff and awarded £25k damages

Issue: Whether combined photography and talking instrument can be considered libel or slander –

It amounted to libel only because together they formed ‘part of one complex, common exhibition’. Because the sound recording was ‘ancillary’ to the visual images that it could be regarded as libel rather than slander.

Where sound exists independently of any visual image, Slesser LJ’s reasoning suggest slander - too narrow (see statutes)

Question 8

Moore v Meagher (1807)

Answer 8

C lost out on the hospitality of friends because of defamatory statement - constituted MATERIAL LOSS

Mere loss of reputation not enough

Question 9

Gray v Jones [1939]

Answer 9

Re: Imputation of criminal conduct

D said to plaintiff ‘you are a convicted person. I will not have you here.’

It was irrelevant that the plaintiff was not out in jeopardy of any further prosecution

Atkinson LJ:
the misconduct alleged was so serious that other people were likely to shun the plaintiff and exclude him from their society

NOTE: Spoken words of mere suspicion will not support an action without proof of damage (Simons v Mitchell (1880))