Bognor Regis Urban District Council v Campion
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Date | 1972 |
| Year | 1972 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division |
Local Government - Powers - Statutory corporation - Right to bring legal proceedings - Defamation action for protection of “governing” reputation - Whether power to bring -
An urban district council, a statutory corporation under section 31 of the Local Government Act 1933F1 brought an action for libel against the defendant, a ratepayer, who published a leaflet defamatory of the council.
On the question whether a local government corporation could sue for defamation in accordance with powers under section 276 of the Act of 1933:—
Held, giving judgment for the council, that a local government corporation had a “governing” reputation which they were entitled to protect by a defamation action (post, p. 988G, H).
The following cases are referred to in the judgment:
D. & L. Caterers Ltd. v. D'Ajou [
Lewis v. Daily Telegraph Ltd. [
Manchester Corporation v. Williams [
Metropolitan Saloon Omnibus Co. v. Hawkins (
National Union of General and Municipal Workers v. Gillian [
Selby Bridge Proprietors v. Sunday Telegraph, The Times, February 17, 1966.
South Hetton Coal Co. v. North-Eastern News Association Ltd. [
Whitfield v. South-Eastern Railway Co. (
Willis v. Brooks [
ACTION
By writ dated April 9, 1969, the plaintiffs, Bognor Regis Urban District Council, brought an action for damages for libel and sought an injunction against the defendant, Eric William Campion, in respect of a leaflet headed “Save Bognor Group, Leaflet No. 4,” distributed by the defendant at a meeting of the Felpham Ratepayers' Association, held at the Village Memorial Hall on January 24, 1969.
The leaflet contained the following words:
“January, 1969 Dear Resident, ‘HORRIFYING, DISTURBING AND ALMOST EVIL’ read the banner headline of the ‘Bognor Post’ dated 14th December, 1968. — couldn't think of a better description of Bognor's ‘toytown Hitlerism local government’ myself, Mr. Editor! If your local tradesmen Councillors can increase your pages of advertisements from 26 to 30, guarantee you at least two pages of ‘copy’ on Council self-praise propaganda each week and arrange a couple of pages of photos of their ‘charitable acts’, you will no longer need your 1½ reporters. They might even stop breathing down your neck if you rename your paper ‘The Town Hall Echo and Advertiser,’ Sir. When are you changing to COLOUR PRINTING? — or do you think that a black line round the front page to denote the death of free press and free speech sufficient?
“Mr. Editor, we all preferred your free outspoken and unbiased ‘Post’ of two years ago. THE ONE THAT HAD THE COURAGE TO PRESENT BOTH SIDES OF LOCAL DISPUTES AND HAPPENINGS. REGARDLESS OF THE CONSTANT PRESSURE FROM OUR TOWN HALL! …
“(N.B. On the previous occasion, when complaints were made to the Director of Public Prosecutions, Councillor T. BOOTHMAN was found guilty on both charges. Mr. Paul Smith (a former clerk to the council) gave evidence at the first court hearing in Arundel, but was instantly sacked by the Council, BEFORE THE RESUMED HEARING WAS CONCLUDED.)
“These are rights granted to all ratepayers who have the courage to face up to these ‘guttersnipe’ attacks by certain types of Councillors. (i) To object to any item in the Council's accounts (ii) To report any matter to the Director of Public Prosecutions where it appears that a Councillor is ignoring ‘section 76’ …
“ANONYMOUS POSTCARDS. You state that certain Councillors have received anonymous postcards. These cards have been described as odious, offensive, poison pen, libellous, defamatory and CHILDISH IN THE EXTREME. Have you made up your mind yet? ‘POISON PEN?’ and ‘CHILDISH’ ARE NOT QUITE THE SAME!
“Bookmaker Larcombe now states that the authors of these cards were Messrs. Cam pion and Downer.
“When and where was this ‘Kangaroo Court’ held? Who appointed this know-all bookmaker as President of the Kangaroo Court?
“NO TRIAL, NO WITNESSES TO CROSS-EXAMINE, NO DEFENCE — NO DEFENDANTS. FOUND GUILTY ON THE ALLEGED EVIDENCE OF WRITTEN REPORT OF A HANDWRITTING EXPERT !! EVEN THE DEFEATED FACIST COUNTRIES PUT ON A MOCK TRIAL WHERE THE ACCUSED COULD APPEAR TO DEFEND THEMSELVES — BUT NOT IN BOGNOR REGIS …
“I know of witnesses who would give evidence that certain Councillors, past or present, together with their associates, have used their knowledge and position of Councillor for financial gain in property dealing and development in the past …
“WHY HAVE YOU DECIDED TO ATTACK AND INSULT ONLY TWO OF THE THOUSANDS OF FAIR-MINDED PEOPLE WHO ARE CRITICAL OF YOUR TOWN HALL PARTY HITLERISM? …
“Remember that 10 acre, two tier trippers ‘car park, with funfairs, and possibly a few flats and a small motel stuck on top as an afterthought. Sorry, we mustn't forget the cinema or theatre due in 10 years time (phase 3)! WHO OPPOSED THIS SO CALLED SEAFRONT DEVELOPMENT SCHEME? They include The Hoteliers’ Association, the Chamber of Trade, the Felpham Ratepayers, the Bognor Ratepayers, and Campion and Downer! Hadn't you noticed, Councillor Larcombe, Sir? Every official organisation, who collectively represent the entire private and commercial population of Bognor, including nearly every Councillor (whose opposition was presented by the Chamber of Trade). Did you oppose it, as well, as a Member of Chamber of Trade? Yes? A kind of ‘each-way bet’?
“When will you, our Councillors, remember that you were elected to carry out the wishes of those who elected you? Do you not think that Bognor has too many Councillors with personal axes to grind, who run this town? I sincerely believe that the views expressed by myself and the other named ‘critic’, express the views of the majority of Bognorians.
“(1) Your seafront development plan is against the wish of practically every resident. We cannot afford to spend £3½ million on a short season ‘tripper-drome’ — especially now that Bognor Council borrowed its last £200,000 in December at 7½%. The interest on only £200,000 is in excess of the income from the scheme — £15,000 each year! The ‘dump the sewage in the shallow bay at Aldwick’ will harm the town's income even more. Who will buy expensive marine properties (which pay rates to offset the town's losses) when it is admitted that sewage will reach the beach.
“(3) Your policy to destroy people's homes as ‘unfit’ is dishonest, especially when the sites are required as tripper car parks or access roads …
“Don't blame your Medical Officer of Health or even your Surveyor. When the advice of your local and County Medical Officer did not fit in with the Council policy over ‘sewage in the sea’, you defied their advice, and sought the opinion of another doctor whose views agreed with Council POLICY.
“To all Councillors, I must point out that FREE SPEECH should NOT be prevented by intimidation, threats of defamation, or by tampering with both local and national press.
“I believe that all statements made in this leaflet are acceptable as ‘fair comment’ or are justifiable in the public interest. I am prepared to withdraw any...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Derbyshire County Council v Times Newspapers Ltd
...with which I would now agree, I find the reasoning by which that conclusion was reached wholly unconvincing. Like Browne in Bognor Regis U.D.C. v. Campion [1972] 2 Q.B. 169, 177, I find the criticism of the Manchester Corporation case by Spencer Bower in his work on actionable defamation c......
- Lim Lip Eng v Ong Ka Chuan (as a public officer of a society registered as Malaysian Chinese Association)
- Chong Chieng Jen v Government of State of Sarawak and Another
- Government of The State of Sarawak and Another v Chong Chieng Jen
-
Freedom of Speech in Australian Law: A Delicate Plant.
...(30) Loveland, above n 12, 92-3. (31) See, eg, Cook v Alexander [1973] 3 All ER 1037, especially Lawton LJ at 1043. See also ibid. (32) [1972] 2 QB 169. (33) [1984] 1 QB (34) 98 Pac 281 (Kan Sup Ct, 1908) (`Coleman'). (35) Earlier Kansas decisions providing a broad form of qualified privile......
-
Legal Intimidation: A SLAPP in the Face of Democracy.
...(30) Loveland, above n 12, 92-3. (31) See, eg, Cook v Alexander [1973] 3 All ER 1037, especially Lawton LJ at 1043. See also ibid. (32) [1972] 2 QB 169. (33) [1984] 1 QB (34) 98 Pac 281 (Kan Sup Ct, 1908) (`Coleman'). (35) Earlier Kansas decisions providing a broad form of qualified privile......
-
Political Libels: A Comparative Study.
...(30) Loveland, above n 12, 92-3. (31) See, eg, Cook v Alexander [1973] 3 All ER 1037, especially Lawton LJ at 1043. See also ibid. (32) [1972] 2 QB 169. (33) [1984] 1 QB (34) 98 Pac 281 (Kan Sup Ct, 1908) (`Coleman'). (35) Earlier Kansas decisions providing a broad form of qualified privile......