Goody v Odhams Press Ltd

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
JudgeThe Master Of The Rolls,Lord Justice Danckwerts,Lord Justice Salmon
Judgment Date20 June 1966
Judgment citation (vLex)[1966] EWCA Civ J0620-1
Date20 June 1966
CourtCourt of Appeal
Douglas Gordon Goody
Plaintiff Appellant
and
Odhams Press Limited.
Defendants Repondents

[1966] EWCA Civ J0620-1

Before:

The Master of the Rolls

(Lord Denning)

Lord Justice Danckwerts and

Lord Justice Salmon

In The Supreme Court of Judicature

Court of Appeal

From Mr Justice Cantley

Mr Leonard Lewis (instructed by Messrs Lesser & Co.) appeared as Counsel for the Appellant.

Mr H. Davidson (instructed by Messrs Simmons & Simmons) appeared as Counsel for the Respondents.

The Master Of The Rolls
1

On the 8th August, 1963, there was the Great Train Robbery. Over 2½ million pounds was stolen. On the 26th March, 1964, Douglas Gordon Goody was convicted of conspiring to stop the nail and, being armed with an offensive weapon, robbing Frank Dewhurst of 120 mailbags. He was sentenced to thirty years imprisonment, The Judge told Goody that he "had become a dangerous menace to society".

2

Four months later, on the 26th July, 19641 "the "People" newspaper published a story headed: "A suburban housewife reveals how she was caught up in the great mailbag plot", followed by an account said to have been given by Mrs Karin Field of how she was "forced to help the gang to get away with their haul". The article contained many references to Goody and described the leading part played by him.

3

Two months later, on the 17th September, 1964, Goody brought a libel action against the "People", complaining that the article was defamatory of him. The "People" at first pleaded a full justification. They said that all the words were true in substance and in fact. In order to make good that plea, they would have to prove that Goody was in fact one of the train robbers and was in fact guilty. It would not be sufficient to prove that he was convicted of the train robbery. The reason is because there is a strange rule of law which says that a conviction is no evidence of guilt, not even prima facie evidence. That was decided in Hollington v. F. Hewthorn & Co, Ltd., 1943 King's Bench, p. 587, I argued that case myself and (lid my best to persuade the Court that a conviction was evidence of guilt. But they would not have it, I thought that decision was wrong at the time, I still think it was wrong. But in this Court we are bound by it. It means that when anyone publishes a story about a crime, he is in peril of being sued for libel. In the action he cannot rely on the conviction as proof of guilt. He has to prove it all over again, if he can. Witness the recent case of Mr Hinds against Detective InspectorSparkes. Faced with this difficulty, the "People" seek to amend their defence. They wish to strike out the full justification, and plead instead a partial justification, and also-a plea in mitigation of damage.

4

1. The Partial Justification:

5

The defendants seek to justify the following words in the article: "Now that most of the robbers are in prison and their appeals disposed of…. Goody (now in prison for thirty years for his part in the mail raid)". The defendants plead as to those words: "Insofar as the words complained of allege that the defendant is in prison for thirty years and his appeal disposed of, they are true in substance and in fact". By way of particulars of that plea they set out his conviction at the Assizes at Aylesbury. Mr Lewis has argued before us that those words are not severable from the rest of the article, and cannot be made the subject of a partial justification. I do not accept this argument. The words are severable. The partial justification is quite admissible. Under it the defendants can prove the conviction; they can prove the appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal; and the sentence he is serving.

6

2. The Plea in mitigation of damage:

7

The defendants plead in the first place that Goody is of bad reputation as a thief and robber given to violence. That is clearly admissible. But, in addition, they seek to give evidence of his previous convictions starting in the year 1948. These include a conviction in March 1948 of robbery with violence for which he was sentenced to twenty-one months imprisonment and twelve strokes of the birch, and several other convictions culminating in the conviction for the Great Train Robbery in March 1964, Mr Lewis says that these previous convictions are not admissible in mitigation of damage. He relies on the decision in Scott v. Sampson, 1882, 8 Queen's Bench Division, p. 491, which was approved by the House of Lords in Plato Films Ltd. v. Speidel, 1961 Appeal Cases, p. 1090, Those cases showthat in mitigation of damage you can give evidence of general tad reputation, but you cannot give evidence of particular instances of misconduct. These previous convictions are, says Mr Lewis, only particular instances of misconduct. The defendants cannot give then as evidence. They can only put a police officer in the box to say that this man is of bad reputation and given to violence, but the officer cannot in evidence in chief give the previous convictions.

8

I do not accept Mr Lewis's argument, I think that previous convictions are admissible. They stand in a class by themselves. They are the raw material upon which bad reputation is built up. They have taken place in open Court. They are matters of public knowledge. They are accepted by people generally as giving the best guide to his reputation and standing. They must of course be relevant, in this sense, that they must be convictions in the relevant sector of his life and have taken place within a relevant period such as to affect his current reputation. But being relevant, they are admissible. They are very different from previous instances of misconduct, for those have not been tried out or resulted in convictions or come before a Court of law. To introduce those night lead to endless disputes. Whereas previous convictions are virtually indisputable.

9

In support of this view we were referred to the judgments of Lord Justice Holroyd Pearce and Lord Justice Devlin, as they then were, in Dingle v. Associated Newspapers Ltd., 1964 Appeal Cases, p. 371, and to the case of Waters v. Sunday Pictorial Newspapers Ltd., 1961, 2 All England Reports, p. 758. But there is not much guidance in any of the cases. We are faced today for the first time in these Courts with the question whether previous convictions are admissible in mitigation of damages, I think they are. For the simple reason that damages for libel are given for injury to character and reputation: and what better guide can there be to his character and reputationthan his previous convictions?

10

I think the Master and the Judge were quite right in allowing these particulars in mitigation of damage to stand.

11

The defendants have a cross appeal as to costs. On the partial justification the Judge in chambers dismissed the plaintiff's appeal but ordered the costs of the appeal to the Judge to be costs in the cause. Seeing that the plaintiff failed on this question...

To continue reading

Request your trial
63 cases
  • Johannes Samot v George Yame and Concrete Aggregate PNG (2020) N8256
    • Papua New Guinea
    • National Court
    • 17 March 2020
    ...in a number of British decisions which expressed disapproval of the rule in Hollington v Hewthorn, eg Goody v Oldham’s Press Ltd [1967] 1 QB 333, Barclays Bank v Cole [1967] 2 WLR 166, Stupple v Royal Insurance Co Ltd [1971] 1 QB 50, McIlkenny v Chief Constable [1980] 2 All ER 227. The lega......
  • Helen Jimmy v Paul Rookes (2012) N4705
    • Papua New Guinea
    • National Court
    • 25 June 2012
    ...409 Eastern Highlands Provincial Government v Aita Ivarato (1999) N1893 Garo Kei v MVIT [1992] PNGLR 195 Goody v Oldham’s Press Ltd [1967] 1 QB 333 Hollington v Hewthorn [1943] 1 KB 587 Joe Danga v MVIT (1997) N1665 John Kaina v The State [1990] PNGLR 292 McIlkenny v Chief Constable [1980] ......
  • Dato' Seri Anwar bin Ibrahim v Khairy Jamaluddin
    • Malaysia
    • High Court (Malaysia)
    • 1 January 2017
  • Dato' Seri Anwar Ibrahim v Khairy Jamaluddin
    • Malaysia
    • High Court (Malaysia)
    • 1 January 2015
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 firm's commentaries
  • Mitigation in defamation: New South Wales Court of Appeal overturns Rochfort v Fairfax
    • Australia
    • Mondaq Australia
    • 15 December 2010
    ...which means his or her reputation as at the date of defamatory publication. Referring to the authority of Goody v OdhamsPress Limited [1967] 1 QB 333. Sugarman ACJ held in Rochfort "The admissibility of convictions for [mitigation] is limited to convictions which have occurred prior to the ......
1 books & journal articles
  • Charge and Questions to the Jury
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books Canadian Libel and Slander Actions
    • 17 June 2004
    ...conviction. Scott v. Sampson, [18815] All E.R. 628. Approved in Plato Films v. Speidel, [1961] 1 All E.R. 876. Goody v. Odhams Press, [1966] 3 All E.R. 369 (C.A.). Chapter TwentyNine: Charge and Questions to the Jury 835 The evidence must be confined to the general bad reputation of the pla......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT