Supreme Court
Action No. 160 of 1980
8th March, 1984
Moe, C.J.

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

Tort - Libel - Plea of justification - Whether plea established - Aggravated damages - Malice on the part of the Defendants.

J U D G M E N T

The Plaintiff seek damages for libel in respect of two articles published in the newspaper "The Beacon". The first appeared in the issue of the newspaper for the 10th May, 1980 and read as follows:-

A BRAWLING PRINCIPAL

Friday, 9th May: At 8:30 p.m. last night Little Store (corner of New Road and Hydes), was the scene of a disgraceful female brawl in which Mrs. Marie Hoare, Principal of Junior Secondary #1, viciously attacked another female, one Ms. Rose Foreman and employee of Little Store.

In typical-street-fighting style clothes were torn, and kicks, punches and bad words flew - so much so, that spectators could not believe it was coming from the mouth of a high school principal.

After the brawl besides damage to the fighters Little Store's inside showcase was broken and in shambles. Police investigations are now underway.

The second appeared in the issue for the 17th May, 1980 and read as follows:-

NOW, A THREATENING PRINCIPAL

Wed., 14th May: This morning Ms. Rose Foreman, paid an unsolicited visit to the Beacon's office.

She came in reference to last week's Beacon article "A Brawling Principal", which stated that the Principal of Junior Secondary School #1 - Mrs. Marie Hoare had viciously attacked her, at her work place, Little Store.

Ms. Foreman, confirmed the truth of the Beacon story, and before she left, made a signed statement to this effect. Other eye-witnesses have also visited the Beacon to confirm our story.

NOTE: The Beacon has received from the Law Firm of Musa and Balderamos, requesting that we print an apology to Mrs. Marie Hoare, and financially compensate her, or else they will sue.

The Beacon will not apologise for the truth. We stand by the veracity of our statement, and is prepared to do battle in Court any time.

The Plaintiff alleged the words in the first article meant and were understood to mean -

(i)	that the Plaintiff had criminally assaulted Rose Foreman;
(ii)	that the Plaintiff had used indecent language in public;
(iii)	that the Plaintiff had acted in a manner unbecoming the principal of a secondary school.

The Defendants admit those meanings. Those meanings are defamatory of the Plaintiff. The Defendants plead justification.

The Plaintiff alleged the words in the second article meant and were understood to mean -

(i)	that the facts contained in the 10th May, 1980 issue of the Beacon under the heading "A Brawling Principal" were true and correct;
(ii)	that the imputations contained in the said article of 10th May, 1980 and set out as above were true and correct;
(iii)	that the Plaintiff had dishonestly requested an apology and compensation for a truthful article.

The Defendants admit the first two meanings. By implication these two meanings are defamatory of the Plaintiff. The Defendant plead justification.

When the article of the 17th is read one reads an account of what is alleged to have transpired in the Beacon's office on the morning of 14th May; a repeat of the statement that the Plaintiff had viciously attacked Rose Foreman at the Little Store, an account of an effort on behalf of the Plaintiff normally taken in libel suits, and a statement that the Beacon holds to the truth of what it has stated, a clear early indication of its plea of justification. I hold there is nothing in that second article on which I can find the third meaning alleged by the Plaintiff.

I turn now to consider whether the Defendants established their plea of justification. In this case, the Defendants must establish to be true that:

(i)	on 8th May, 1980 at Little Store the Plaintiff criminally assaulted Rose Foreman,
(ii)	that on that date and that place the Plaintiff used indecent language and
(iii)	that she acted in a manner unbecoming a principal of a secondary school.

As to what occurred at Little Store on the night of 8th May, 1980, five persons gave an account. These were Sarita Palacio, her husband Fernando Palacio, the Plaintiff, her sister Mrs. Wagner and her cousin Mrs. Cain. I accepted the evidence which was clear that Mrs. Wagner held on to Rose Foreman - Mrs. Wagner herself said she collared her - there was a tussle between these two, a show-case then between them was overturned, Mrs. Wagner, the show-case and Miss. Foreman fell. I accepted further that both Mrs. Wagner and Rose Foreman used bad language to each other.

There was divergence in the evidence as to whether the Plaintiff committed the acts alleged. On this I regarded Mr. Palacio's evidence as unreliable. Under cross examination he admitted as follows:-

"I remember visiting Mr. Godfrey's office and giving a statement. I recall saying in the statement my attention was drawn to two women in a clench with the glass case between them. I said I saw no one else involved in the fight except two."

Those statements were contrary to what he said before me which was.

"There was a clench. I saw three women --- the women were on the ground, the glass underneath of them --- while on the floor the three were shouting and were hitting out."

His reaction and demeanor when faced with his previous statement indicated his evidence was suspect. He sought to explain that what he had said previously was two against one was involved in the fight. I found that most unsatisfactory. I also regarded the testimony of Mrs. Cain as unreliable. By her own admission in cross-examination the incident occurred sometime ago and she may not be remembering correctly.

Of the other three persons who related what occurred at Little Store the evidence of Mrs. Palacio was in direct conflict with that of the Plaintiff and Mrs. Wagner. Having seen and heard them I accepted the account of the Plaintiff and Mrs. Wagner. As compared with Mrs. Palacio, the demeanor of the Plaintiff made me feel I could rely on her. Mrs. Wagner also impressed me as being quite straightforward and frank about the incident. She easily admitted that she assaulted Rose Foreman. There was also evidence that Mrs. Wagner was the only one prosecuted for assaulting Rose Foreman. This was consistent with the account given by the Plaintiff and Mrs. Wagner. I therefore rejected Mrs. Palacio's account on this particular issue. On the evidence of the Plaintiff and Mrs. Wagner which I accepted the Plaintiff did not assault Rose Foreman, nor used indecent language.

In the circumstances I held that the Defendants did not prove to be true that the Plaintiff either unlawfully assaulted Rose Foreman or used indecent language and consequently did not sustain their plea of justification in respect of the three imputations as above.

The Plaintiff is entitled to damages for the libel published and not justified. She asked for damages on the basis of aggravated or exemplary damages. In her Statement of Claim she gave particulars as to six matters from which she asked that malice may be inferred. Three of them were not established. Established were that one Defendant is a former Leader of the Opposition, that the Plaintiff is a former candidate of and closely associated with the governing party and that the Defendants published the following libel in the issue of the Beacon for the 24th May, 1980:-

OH! A BATTLING PRINCIPAL

Wed., 21st May: This morning, the Beacon, received a law suit from the law firm of Musa and Balderamos' junior counsel, Glen Godfrey on behalf of Mrs. Marie Hoare.

They alleged libel - arising out of two articles, printed in the Beacon, the first "A Brawling Principal," in the Beacon of Saturday, 10th May and the second article "Now, a Threatening Principal," in the Beacon of last Saturday, 17th May.

Their suit, follows a letter in which Mrs. Hoare, Principal of Belize Junior Secondary School #1, requested that we publish an apology and make financial redress.

We replied that the Beacon, had no intention to apologise for the truth, and we were prepared to go to Court. The Beacon's story was confirmed by Ms. Rose Foreman, the young lady attacked by Mrs. Marie Hoare.

But how short is one's memory? Grace Flowers, a former student of Belize Junior Secondary School #1, remembers she was dismissed by Mrs. Marie Hoare, just weeks before graduation for fighting - doing what the Principal has done.

Other matters will be exposed, and put to her in Court by Beacon's Attorney, and we will report the trial verbatim ("word for word"), in the Beacon, for our readers.

We will advise the public as to the exact date of the trial, we want the Courtroom filled - so you can hear and know, what you don't know.

We will throw gas on this whole issue - hope nobody stops us from lighting the match.

The publication of the 24th May, will be seen to be mainly a restatement of the position already taken by both sides, an account of negotiations by and/or behalf of them and that the matter has to be put before the court. However, reference is made to the Plaintiff's dismissal of a pupil, a suggestion made that the Defendants were going to expose other matters concerning the Plaintiff and that there was going to be an explosion as a result of the issue. There was thus some evidence from which it may be inferred that the Defendants were gunning for the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff also contented that the evidence that the Defendant the Editor made enquiries only of certain persons but not of the Plaintiff and the other principal actors at the incident and made no mention of Mrs. Wagner in an article relating to the incident are sufficient to impute malice. I accept that editors and publishers of newspapers rely on statements made to them. Frequently such statements are inaccurate and reliance on an inaccurate statement does not necessarily show malice. But the circumstances of this case were such that I considered that it was probable that the statements made to the Editor would have included mention of Mrs. Wagner as having assaulted Rose Foreman. There would then have been an ulterior motive in publishing an account pointing only to the Plaintiff. This was confirmed in my mind by the statements in the article of the 24th May which indicated an intention to expose other matters about the Plaintiff and bring about an explosive situation for her. No such other matters have been presented. From all the circumstances I inferred malice on the part of the defendants and this aggravated the damages to which the Plaintiff is entitled.

Taking into account that the Plaintiff is the Principal of a Junior Secondary School in Belize, the nature of the libel, the failure of the Defendants to apologise, the malice of the Defendants such as I found and what the Plaintiff must have suffered as a result of the libel, I award the Plaintiff damages in the sum of $1,500.00. She is to have her costs

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