Supreme Court
Action No. 223 of 1977
11th June 1980.
Moe, J.

Mr. Glenn Godfrey for the Plaintiff.
Mr. Dean Barrow for the Defendants.

Action for damages for libel - Article in The Reporter - First issue for determination whether natural and ordinary meaning of article is what is alleged in the Statement of Claim - Interpretation to be done without regard to any other evidence - Finding that meanings of words in article defamatory of Plaintiff - Plea of justification - Defendant must prove that defamatory imputation true - Proven in relation to certain paragraphs of Statement of Claim - Evidence in proof of other paragraphs unreliable and rejected by Court - Plea of justification fails in regard to those paragraphs - Award of aggravated or exemplary damages not appropriate - Each libel need not be assessed separately - Plaintiff to be compensated for injury to his character and feelings - Damages assessed at $2500.00 - Costs to be taxed - Liability not established against second Defendant.

J U D G M E N T

The first Defendant, Harry Lawrence, is the editor, printer and publisher of the newspaper "The Reporter". There appeared in the issue of that paper for the 4th December 1977 the following article which is the subject matter of this Action: -

"YPF Leader Bashed & Stabbed" "Ray Lightburn & Gang are Suspects".

"One of the leaders and founders of the Youth Popular Front movement, 23 year old Bobby Smith, was attacked and stabbed with an ice-pick shortly before mid-night on Thursday following a huge pre-election rally sponsored by the YPF at the Courthouse Wharf.

Reports say he was attacked by a group of young men, one of whom bashed him over the forehead with a piece of lumber while another stabbed him in the abdomen with an ice-pick. His attackers fled, leaving him bleeding in the street with severe stomach cramps.

The attack took place on East Canal Street between Orange and Church. It has been established beyond a doubt that it was a political crime.

Smith, who was hospitalized and had to take an operation to patch up his punctured intestines, later related that he heard someone call his name "Bobby"! He looked round to receive a terrific blow across his forehead, causing his knees to buckle. Then he felt the puncture-wound in his abdomen.

Earlier Smith and a party of friends were at the Melting Pot Disco celebrating their successful meeting when Ray Lightburn and his gang of paid henchmen walked in and looked around. They each had a beer and walked out. Lightburn, an associate of gunman Silky Stuart, has become the prime suspect in the "bash & juk" incident, the first violence to erupt in the current political campaign.

"We have not reported the matter to the Police" a YPF spokesman told the Reporter, "because we have no faith in their effectiveness under the present circumstances." It is not known whether Smith recognized any of his attackers."

2. The Plaintiff now seeks to recover damages for libel which he alleges emanated from the said publication, and in consequence of which he has been much injured in his credit, character and reputation and has been brought into public scandal, odium and contempt. The Plaintiff pleaded in paragraph 3 of the Statement of Claim that the words of the article in their natural and ordinary meanings meant, and were understood to mean: (a) that the Plaintiff is the leader of a criminal gang of paid henchmen; (b) that the Plaintiff and his said gang are the suspected attackers who bashed and stabbed one Bobby Smith, one of the leaders of the YPF - Youth Popular Front; (c) that the said attack on Bobby Smith was a politically motivated crime and that the prime suspect of this crime was the Plaintiff. He pleaded in paragraph 4 further, or in the alternative, that the words meant or were understood to mean: (a) that the Plaintiff was guilty of organizing and participating in a shameless and vicious assault and wounding on a young political opponent; (b) that the Plaintiff was the prime suspect to the crime but that the police, despite the evidence, would not arrest him.

3. In the Defence filed, the first Defendant admits the publication of the article, but denies that the words bore any of the defamatory meanings pleaded by the Plaintiff, and says that the words are true in substance and in fact.

4. The first issue for my determination is whether the natural and ordinary meaning of the article is that which is alleged in the Statement of Claim and in this determination I must rely on my own interpretation of the words without the aid of any other evidence whatsoever: See Diplock L.J. in Slim v Daily Telegraph (1968) 2 W.L.R. 599.

5. In the first paragraph of the article there is a clear statement that one of the leaders of the Youth Popular Front movement, 23-year-old Bobby Smith, was attacked and stabbed with an ice-pick. In bold headlines to the article are the statements: "Y. P. F. Leader Bashed and Stabbed" "Ray Lightburn and Gang are Suspects." In the third paragraph of the article is the clear statement, "It has been established beyond a doubt that it was a political crime" and in the penultimate paragraph there is a further clear statement "Lightburn, an associate of gunman Silky Stuart has become the prime suspect in the bash and juk incident." I have no hesitation therefore in holding that the words of the article do in fact have the meaning pleaded in paragraph 3 (b) and (c) of the Statement of Claim. Further, there is no doubt in my mind that those two meanings reflect adversely on the plaintiff and tend to lower him in the estimation of right thinking members of society generally (see Sim v Stretch (1936) 2 AER 1237. I therefore hold that both meanings are defamatory of the Plaintiff.

6. The first Defendant during trial accepted that the words in their natural and ordinary meaning meant as was pleaded in paragraph 3(b) and (c) of the Statement of Claim, but maintained that it cannot be interpreted to mean anything more than that the Plaintiff was suspected of the crime against Smith. The question now to be answered is whether the article has the meaning which the Plaintiff set out in paragraph 4 (a) of the Statement of Claim. In determining this issue the test is the same as that applied in deciding whether the article is capable of having any defamatory meaning. That is, what is the meaning that the article conveys to the ordinary man? [see Lord Selbourne, L.C. in Capital and Counties Bank v Henty (1882) 7 A.C. 745]. Further I bore in mind that the ordinary man is not likely to distinguish between hints and allegations, suspicion and guilt. As Lord Devlin pointed out in Lewis v Daily Telegraph (1963) 2 W.L.R. at page 1095, "it is the broad impression conveyed by a publication that has to be considered and not the meaning of each word or sentence under analysis." The Defendant evidently was aware of this. He said in his evidence that the last sentence of the article, "It is not known whether Smith recognized any of his attackers," was put in to prevent an interpretation of the article that the Plaintiff and his gang stabbed Bobby Smith. I do not find that that sentence prevents such an interpretation.

7. In my view the broad effect of the article read as a whole was the imputation that the Plaintiff and his gang bashed and stabbed Bobby Smith i.e. that the Plaintiff was guilty of participating in the crime related in the article. I therefore hold that the article is capable of the meaning, and do in fact mean as pleaded in paragraph 4 (a) of the Statement of Claim.

8. The Defendant has also denied that the article has the meaning pleaded in paragraph 3(a) of the Statement Claim. There is a clear statement in paragraph 5 of the article that Lightburn (the Plaintiff) is the leader of a gang of henchmen. The impression given by such a statement in an article which imputes that the said gang has committed a crime is that it is a criminal gang. I therefore also hold that the article meant as the Plaintiff alleged in paragraph 3(a) of the Statement of Claim.

9. The meanings in paragraphs 3(a) and 4(a) are both defamatory of the Plaintiff.

10. I turn now to consider whether, in the circumstances, the Defendant established his plea of justification. It is well settled that under a plea of justification the Defendant must justify the precise imputation complained of and, in order to sustain such a plea, must prove that defamatory imputation to be true. In the circumstances of this case, therefore, the Defendant, in order to succeed in his plea of justification, must establish the truth of each of the injurious imputations found above to be contained in the article.

11. The Defendant gave evidence that several persons, including Bobby Smith, were of the opinion that the Plaintiff was responsible for the stabbing of the said Bobby Smith. The Plaintiff himself under cross-examination agreed that he was one of the persons suspected to be involved in the incident before the publication appeared. The imputations pleaded in paragraph 3(b) and (c) and 4(b) were shown (on the evidence) to be true, and I hold that the Defendant has sustained his plea of Justification in respect of those imputations.

12. The victim Bobby Smith gave evidence for the Defendant and recounted the attack on him. He said that on the night in question he was walking down West Street. On reaching the intersection with Bishop Street where there was a large disused building which had suffered fire and the remains of a cement wall, someone called his name and he turned around. He was struck several blows, some in his face, with a piece of wood. He was also struck with a rock. He saw stars and was dizzy. He was stabbed in his side with an ice-pick. He could not recognize who struck him in his side with the pick. When he felt the sting in his side he put his hand to that side and he heard a voice say "Uunna run, Bobby going for he gun". He recognized that voice to be that of the Plaintiff. The attackers scattered and he ran. When he had covered about 15 feet and turned the intersection, he saw the Plaintiff crossing the street. Soon after, his knees bucked and he collapsed.

13. That portion of Smith's evidence implicating the Plaintiff caused me some concern and much doubt was raised in my mind about it. At the end of his examination-in-chief Smith had referred to the Plaintiff only in saying that when he was moving away from the scene of the attack, he saw the Plaintiff going across a yard by a coconut tree. However, under cross-examination he said he recognized the Plaintiff as his attacker by his voice i.e. the voice of the person saying, "Uunna run, Bobby going for he gun." This came from him while Counsel sought to show he did not, or could not identify his attacker.

14. Smith said that the police never questioned him and he never gave a statement to the police about the incident. For the Plaintiff, Lester Garnett, a Corporal of Police, gave evidence that he interviewed and recorded from Smith a statement which Smith signed. A copy of that document was produced. Corporal Desmond Vaughan gave evidence that he was in charge of the investigation into the attack on Smith and that at no time was the Plaintiff a suspect. The investigation included the interviewing and recording of the Statement from Smith and the proper inference to be drawn from Corporal Garnett's and Corporal Vaughan's evidence is that Smith did not say anything to the police which implicated the Plaintiff.

15. All of the above left me in doubt that I could act on Smith's evidence. But it also emerged during the cross-examination of the first Defendant, Mr. Lawrence, that he wrote a letter to the American authorities on behalf of Bobby Smith immediately before Smith gave his evidence in this case in order to help Smith to get a visa. In that letter an impression was given about Smith which was not correct. In my view this pointed to an interest in Smith giving his evidence as he did for the Defendant, whereas in 1977 there had been no such facts given to the police.

16. Consequently, I felt I could not act on this part of Smith's evidence and rejected it. Smith's evidence being the only evidence on the issue whether or not the Plaintiff participated in the attack on Smith, I held that the Defendant did not prove to be true that the Plaintiff participated in the attack on Bobby Smith, and consequently did not sustain the plea of Justification in respect of the imputations pleaded in paragraph 4(a) and 3(a) respectively of the Statement of Claim.

17. There now remains the question of the damage to be awarded for the libel found to be contained in the publication concerned and not justified. The Plaintiff asked for damages on the basis of aggravated or exemplary damages. I do not find that this is an appropriate case for such an award. The evidence does not disclose any manner of publication or other conduct on the part of the Defendant to justify such an award.

18. I have considered all the circumstances of the case and took particularly into account the position and standing of the Plaintiff, that the incident in which it was imputed that the Plaintiff was involved created a sensation in Belize City, the extent of the circulation of the newspaper "The Reporter", and the distress and suffering that the Plaintiff must have suffered as a result.

19. It appears that I need not assess damages in respect of each libel separately. The Plaintiff must be suitably compensated for the injury to his character and feelings. I am of opinion that the Plaintiff should receive damages in the sum of $2,500.00. Judgment therefore for the Plaintiff is for $2,500.00 against the first Defendant. He will also have his taxed costs.

20. No liability was established against the second Defendant and judgment will also be entered for the second Defendant.

----------OO----------