Goldsmith v Sperrings Ltd
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | THE MASTER OF THE ROLLS,LORD JUSTICE SCARMAN,LORD JUSTICE BRIDGE |
| Judgment Date | 23 February 1977 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1977] EWCA Civ J0223-1 |
| Date | 23 February 1977 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
[1977] EWCA Civ J0223-1
The Master of the Rolls (Lord Denning)
Lord Justice Scarman and
Lord Justice Bridge
In The Supreme Court of Judicature
Court of Appeal
On Appeal from the High Court of Justice
Queen's Bench Division
Judge in Chambers
MR. C. LEWIS HAWSER, Q.C. and MR. R. RAMPTON (instructed by Messrs. Eric Levine & Co. Solicitors, London) appeared on behalf of the Plaintiff (Respondent).
MR. J. COMYN, Q.C. and MR. D. BROWNE (instructed by Messrs. Bindman & Partners, Solicitors, London) appeared on behalf of the Defendants (Appellants).
At the outset Mr. James Comyn, Q.C. told us that this was a very important case. It concerned the freedom of the Press. That is a matter which is very dear to us. But when Mr. Lewis Hawser, Q.C, came to reply he retorted that it concerned the good name of an ordinary citizen. That, too, is a matter which is equally dear to us. These two interests come into conflict here. We have to choose between them. We have to hold the balance and to see which way the scales come down.
Before I go any further, however, I would beg of you to remember throughout that this is not an action against the magazine "Private Eye". It is an action against a respectable firm of traders - Sperrings Limited. They carry on business in Southampton. They are newsagents with many shops in the district. They distribute newspapers and magazines of all kinds. Amongst them, they include "Private Eye", If they have' done any wrong at all, it is simply that they distribute "Private Eye" amongst the many other publications they handle. That is all that is alleged against them. You must also remember that there are 36 other respectable firms of distributors in just the same position all over the country who are also sued. All that is said against them is that they distributed "Private Eye".
But you will not get a proper picture unless you know something of the characters. So let me start with Mr. James Goldsmith. He has abundant ability and enterprise. Now only aged 43; he is the chairman of important industrial and financial companies both in England and France. He has recently been honoured with the distinction of Knighthood. So I will hereinafter call him Sir James.
Now let me go to "Private Eye". It is a magazine publishedevery fortnight with a circulation of 100,000. You will find it in public libraries, clubs, colleges, business places and private houses. It has a reputation for its original style and colourful allusions. It caricatures well-known people for the amusement of its readers. It exposes wrongdoing but sometimes misses the mark and gets sued for libel. It is distributed by many wholesale and retail firms of good standing, and has been for years. One of them gives it this character: It is a "contentious and controversial publication which appears to attract a fair number of libel writs". The principals who are responsible for it are the editor, Mr. Ingrams, the publishers Pressdram Limited and the main distributors Moore-Harness Limited.
This brings me to the casus belli. Just over a year ago "Private Eye" published three articles in three successive issues. Each article covered one page out of twenty-four pages. In that one page there were a few lines in which unpleasant insinuations were made against Mr. James Goldsmith. It is necessary for mo to quote them: because they show the style and character of the magazine and the sort of aspersions that were made.
(i) The Lucan affair. In August 1975 there was a tragedy at the London house of the Seventh Earl of Lucan. The Earl had entered the house, his children's nurse had been killed, his wife had been attacked, Lord Lucan had run off and disappeared. He has never been found to this day.
Lord Lucan had a close friend, Dominic Elwes. He committed suicide a few weeks later. Then, on 12th December, 1975 "Private Bye" published an article with its centre piece a picture of Sir James Goldsmith, described as "Jimmy Goldsmith". It ran: "… All's well that ends Elwes". "From the beginning the police have met obstruction and silence from the circle ofgamblers and bone-heads with whom lord Lucan and Dominic Elwes associated. On the morning after the murder John Aspinall held a lunch to which he invited the Lucan circle so that they could decide 'what to do if Lucan turned up' … At the lunch, apart from Aspinall and Elwes, there were … and Jimmy Goldsmith, the Old Etonian millionaire who is now in charge of Slater Walker. Goldsmith, the richest and most powerful member of the group … in the City is known for his ability in dressing up the balance sheets of his various companies with 'house-deals' - whereby large sums are transferred from one company to another for purposes which are not entirely clear to outsiders".
(ii) The Slater-Walker affair. In 1975 the City of London and many others were staggered by news of the downfall of a big financial concern built up by Mr. James Slater, the chairman of a wide-ranging company called Slater Walker Securities. In order to try to save something from the wreck, the Board of the Company was reconstructed with the help of the Bank of England. Sir James Goldsmith was the chairman. On 26th December, 1975 (the next issue after the Lucan affair) "Private Eye" published an article headed "IN TH3 CITY" by "Slicker" (which was a pseudonym for a contributor named Gillard). It started off with a quotation from "The Financial Times", which attributed this remark to Sir James Goldsmith: "… I am sure that two reconstructed boards, neither of which was linked in the past, can see the thing in proper commercial perspective".
Then "Slicker" added this comment of his own (in which he facetiously called Sir James Goldsmith "Goldenballs"): "… But just how accurate is it for 'Goldenballs; the flamboyant financier with parallel businesses … in Paris and London, to describe himself as free from any link with Ucky Jim and theSlater Walker skeletons? Respite the eagerness with which his candidacy was accepted by the Bank of England … the answer is none too reassuring. For starters, it is absurd for Goldsmith to say he is not linked with the past …".
(iii) The Dan Smith affair. One of the most publicised cases in our time has been that of John Poulson, the architect, who was found guilty of corruption on a large scale: and then of Mr. T. Dan Smith, who had had a distinguished career in local government, and was also found guilty.
On 9th January, 1976 (the next issue after the Slater Walker affair), "Private Eye" published another article "IN THE CITY" by "Slicker". Its first paragraph brought in, not only Sir James Goldsmith, but also his solicitor, Mr. Levine. It ran: "… A little known fact about Jimmy Goldsmith, currently manifestly sagging under the burden of being 'Mr. Clean' at Slater Walker, is that he shares an intriguing link with T. Dan Smith, now serving a long prison sentence for helping John Poulson corrupt various North- East councillors. That link takes the form of solicitor Eric Levine, who is a director of the Goldsmith associated Argyle Securities and Ciro Holdings. Levine would also seem to have acted for Smith in the past".
Everyone will sympathise with Sir James. It was very wrong of "Private Eye" to make those grave imputations against him. He hit back hard. He went to his lawyers and got them to use every legal process that was available to him. These were the blows which he struck in quick succession in the first few days after the articles appeared.
(i) Sir James prosecuted "Private Eye" for a criminal offence. It was a private prosecution of his own. It was in respect of the first article about the disappearance of Lord Lucan. Nowthere is a distinction between a criminal libel and a civil libel. A criminal libel is so serious that the offender should be punished for it by the State itself. He should either be sent to prison or made to pay a fine to the State itself. Whereas a civil libel does not come up to that degree of enormity. The wrongdoer has to pay full compensation in money to the person who is libelled and pay his costs: and he can be ordered not to do it again. But he is not to be sent to prison for it or pay a fine to the State, When a man is charged with criminal libel, it is for the jury to say on which side of the line it falls. That is to say, whether or not it is so serious as to be a crime. They are entitled to, and should, give a general verdict of "Guilty" or "Not Guilty". It is very rare in these days for a newspaper or periodical to be charged with criminal libel, I do not remember such a charge in my time. The persons aggrieved have always sought their remedy in the civil courts. Tot, in this case, Sir James Goldsmith sought permission from a judge to bring criminal, proceedings. He received permission. He laid information before the magistrates. The accused were committed for trial. It will take place in a month or two.
(ii) Sir James brought civil proceedings in respect of the second article (about the reconstruction of Slater Walker), and the third article (about the T. Dan Smith affair). He brought two civil actions against the principals of "Private Eye". One in respect of each article. He claimed both actual and aggravated damages: and an injunction to restrain the publication of the same or similar libels. In bringing these actions Mr. Goldsmith was taking the appropriate legal process. It is the usual course taken by a plaintiff who has been defamed by a newspaper or magazine. If he was successful, hewould recover full compensation for all the damages he suffered: and would stop any similar libels. The damages would cover every single publication of "Private Eye" to the trade and the public in the course of its distribution. The only circumstance...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Puncak Niaga Holdings Berhad v Kris Heavy Engineering & Construction Sdn Bhd
- Malaysia Building Society Bhd v Tan Sri General Ungku Nazaruddin Ungku Mohamed
- TN Metal Industries Sdn Bhd v Ng Pyak Yeow
-
McLaughlin & others v London Borough of Lambeth
...dispute with the First Defendant concerning the First Defendant's carrying out of its statutory functions in regard to Durand [ Goldsmith v Sperrings [1977] 1 WLR 478; Lloyds Bank v Rogers CA unreported 20 December 1996]; and/or (d) it does not on its particular facts justify the expenditur......
-
Table of Cases
...93, 283, 314, 319, 320, 350, 355 Goldsmith v. Sperrings, [1977] 1 W.L.R. 478 (C.A.) .................................................................. .280 Grant v. Cormier-Grant (2001), 56 O.R. (3d) 215 (C.A.) ........................................................... 273 Grant v. Torstar......
-
Civil Procedure
...19(1)(d) of the Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2006 Rev Ed), Tan Lee Meng J approved of Scarman LJ”s decision in Goldsmith v Sperrings Ltd[1977] 1 WLR 478, that strong evidence that the plaintiff was, in fact, seeking something beyond the protection and vindication of his reputation was requ......
-
Defence of Innocent Dissemination at Common Law
...of the word is central to the defence of innocent dissemination because, as Lord Denning MR found in Goldsmith v. Sperrings, [1977] 1 WLR 478 at 487, this defence could not fail unless the defendant knew that the disseminated defamatory material contained a libel of the plaintif that could ......
-
Universities, Defamation and the Internet
...faced with requests todeny access, had some sort of formal or informal policy for dealing with this55 See eg Goldsmith vSperrings Ltd [1977] 2 All ER 566.56 Overall, 44 per cent of respondents had been asked to deny access to one or more users, but 65 percent of universities in Group C had ......