James Wray V. Associated Newspapers Limited And Another
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judge | Lord Johnston |
| Date | 03 March 2000 |
| Docket Number | 014/6 |
| Court | Court of Session |
| Published date | 03 March 2000 |
| OUTER HOUSE, COURT OF SESSION | |
| 014/6/1998
| OPINION OF LORD JOHNSTON in the cause JAMES WRAY Pursuer; against ASSOCIATED NEWSPAPERS LIMITED AND ANOTHER Defenders: ________________ |
Pursuer: Dorrian, Q.C., Dewar; Drummond Miller, W.S.
Defenders: J.L. Mitchell, Q.C., R Dunlop; Haig-Scott & Co., W.S.
3 March 2000
The pursuer is a Member of Parliament and brings this slander action against the defenders who publish inter alia The Mail on Sunday consequent upon an article published by that newspaper on 1 February 1998. The article reflected an interview given by what was then said to be his estranged wife, to a journalist working for that newspaper. The article reflected a banner headline on the front page, occupying the whole of the front page and the whole of page 3 of the particular edition of the newspaper. The wife was originally called the second defender in the action but has been released. I shall refer to her as Mrs Wray.
Without quoting at this stage in any detail, the substance of the article was that pursuer was alleged to be a wife beater and an abuser, physically assaulting her on a number of occasions during their marriage. He was described inter alia as a bully and a "control freak". The article disclosed this on a number of occasions, when it is said that the pursuer punched his wife and, on at least one occasion, was said to have threatened her with a knife. He was charged with swearing and shouting at her on numerous occasions.
Since the defenders maintained that the allegations were true, they were ordained to lead in the proof, which I heard over four days of evidence.
The case raises crucial issues of credibility, but before determining them it is appropriate that I should record the evidence.
The first witness for the defenders was Catherine Wray, the wife in question. She explained that she first met the pursuer in the late 1970s when he was a local councillor and they commenced their relationship in 1983. They were married in 1985 and separated ten years later. About the time of the marriage the pursuer was elected to Parliament, at that stage for the Provan constituency, although he now sits for the re-created constituency of Baillieston. She described her husband as having a split personality, nice at times and violent at others. The phrase "Jekyll and Hyde" was used. She deponed to a number of incidents involving violence perpetrated upon her by her husband. On one occasion he had punched her in the stomach while she was hanging curtains for no apparent reason. On another occasion he had kicked her and struck her on the face which required her to go to the doctor. While on holiday in France in or about 1987 there was an incident which, created by the fact that she wanted to go home, he became angry with her and punched her in the stomach propelling her across the caravan in which they were staying. She told another person on the trip, which was related to rehabilitation of some drug addicts, namely Mary Reedy, what had happened. He regularly swore at her and shouted and bawled. There were two specific instance involving injuries to her eyes for which she required medical treatment. In about January 1987 she alleged that she had been struck in the eye by him with his fist which required her to go to the doctor. She told him that she had injured herself with a brush handle. In a more serious incident in February 1990 she alleged that the pursuer had entered the matrimonial home screaming and bawling, he alleging that she had not been at home when he was trying to contact her. He began to strike her across the body and head. In the ensuing melee the burglar alarm went off and the police came. After that incident the following day she maintained that she went first to her doctor and then took the emergency department of the Western Infirmary before being admitted to Gartnavel where she spent four days. On her visit to the doctor after that incident in 1990 she maintained that she told him then that in fact in 1987 she had been struck by her husband and not injured by a brush handle. After being released from hospital she did not return home for some time and there was a dispute between the parties as to who affected the reconciliation. They did in fact however resume living together. The incidents however continued. On one occasion he threw two ornaments at her; on another occasion, when she was next door at her neighbour's house, when the pursuer returned home and telephoned her demanding food, she obtained a Chinese meal but when she arrived back at the house with it, she maintained that he kicked it all over her and she went back to her neighbour's house covered in the food in question. There was an incident in Strasbourg when the parties were on a Parliamentary delegation where she was thrown across an hotel room. On another occasion it was maintained that he had thrown her across the room and into a wardrobe. The culminating incident, according to Mrs Wray, involved him threatening her with a knife, which he held at her throat. That incident occurred in April 1995 after which the parties separated.
A number of counter-allegations were put to her by pursuer's counsel. In particular, that she was social loving, frequently out all night and most importantly of all had a serious drink problem. It was alleged that she was interested only in money and obtaining a share of the matrimonial home. She denied all these aspects. In summary, therefore, Mrs Wray's evidence substantially conformed to the allegations in the article both generally and specifically.
She was supported firstly by Miss Anne Hetherington, who was a neighbour, who knew her very well seeing her about three times a week. She accepted that the pursuer was away often, but recognised the marriage was not happy. She maintained that the pursuer was very possessive of his wife, frequently calling her on the telephone. It was rubbish to suggest that she was a drunk. Mrs Wray was scared of him because of his violence. After the separation in September 1990 it was the pursuer who was begging Mrs Wray to return. She corroborated the Chinese meal incident to the extent of confirming that Mrs Wray returned to her house covered in the food. She maintained this was just another incident to which Mrs Wray had become resigned.
She was followed in the witness box by a brother of the pursuer, Mr Francis Wray, who had seen little of his brother over the years and indeed had fallen out with him until the death of their father. Thereafter he saw something of the couple. He maintained there was sparky moments and that his brother could at times fly into tantrums shouting and bawling. On one occasion he had seen him come running from the bedroom describing him as "raging bull". He specifically denied the suggestion that Mrs Wray was a drunk. He had visited her in hospital in London when she had attended for a detached retina when she appeared upset at the state of the marriage. He maintained that he was disgusted with the way his brother had treated his wife. He was not shaken much under cross-examination, particularly in relation to the issue of drink, which he said did not feature to any material extent in Mrs Wray's life. He accepted that his brother had told him that the second eye injury was caused as a result of Mrs Wray striking her head against a piece of furniture while drunk in the bedroom.
He was followed by Susan Fulton, whose husband's parents, named Grant, were next door neighbours to the Wrays while they were living together. She deponed to the incident in February 1990 when she received a phonecall from her mother-in-law to go to their house and take some toiletries to Mrs Wray, who was by then in hospital. She maintained that she had to do this because her father-in-law was in a drunken state and could not drive. She complied, went to the hospital, and saw Mrs Wray there. She said she looked a mess. She had a black and blue eye and damage to her face. She maintained she was told by Mrs Wray in hospital that she "had been beaten up by Jimmy". In response to the suggestion that Mrs Wray was a drunk, she dismissed it completely, laughing it off in the witness box. A further witness, Mrs Nancy Reedy, who was a teacher, deponed to having been in France, she said in 1986, with the drug addicts to which I have already referred, and she thought the marriage was reasonably happy. She maintained that Mrs Wray was very fond of her husband, but she accepted, on one occasions, she had found her upset in the campsite lavatories after some argument, about what she did not know. She said, however, that Mrs Wray had been crying.
The defenders' proof concluded with evidence from two doctors, firstly Professor Dutton, who provided a medical report 7/1, to which he spoke. That report was compiled in 1998 and dealt with the two incidents involving the eyes in 1987 and 1990. The substance of his evidence was that on both occasions Mrs Wray had suffered almost identical eye injuries consistent with having been assaulted. He stated that in 1990 she told him that the original explanation with regard to the brush handle in 1987 was not correct and that both occasions she had been struck by her husband. The Professor maintained that given the nature of the injury, which was to the retina, that penetration of the eye was required and this made it less likely that it was caused by a fall against a blunt object. He thought it likely that the mechanism and agency of the injuries on each occasion were the same and were consistent with a blow with a fist.
The final witness for the defenders was Dr Quin, who was Mrs Wray's general practitioner. He deponed to his own clinical notes that he had seen her in 1987 with trauma to her eye, then again in 1990 when he required her first of all to go to the Western Infirmary and thereafter to Gartnavel. He recollected that when she attended on that occasion she was accompanied but he said not...
To continue reading
Request your trial