Morgan v Odhams Press Ltd
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | THE MASTER OF THE ROLLS,LORD JUSTICE PHILLIMORE,Sir GORDON WILLMER |
| Judgment Date | 20 February 1970 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1970] EWCA Civ J0220-1 |
| Date | 20 February 1970 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
[1970] EWCA Civ J0220-1
The Master of the Rolls (Lord Denning),
Lord Justice Phillimore and
Sir Gordon Willmer
In The Supreme Court of Judicature
Court of Appeal
Appeal by defendants from verdict and judgment of Mr. Justice O'Connor and a jury on 12th May, 1969.
Sir JOSEPH Q.C., and Mr. HUGH DAVIDSON (instructed by Messrs. Simmons & Simmons) appeared on behalf of the Appellant Defendants.
Mr. COLIN DUNCAN, Q. C., and Mr. E. HARTLEY (instructed by Messrs. Oswald Rickson, Collier & Co.) appeared on behalf of the Respondent Plaintiff.
Mr. Johnny Morgan brings a libel action against Odhams Press Ltd., who were the publishers at the material time of "THE SUN" newspaper, and Peter Campling, who was a journalist who wrote an article in it.
In the Spring of 1965, a girl called Margo Murray came under the notice of a journalist called Michael Gabbert, who worked for "THE PEOPLE". "The People" newspaper is also published by Odhams Press Ltd. This girl, Margo Murray, had come from Canada and was employed as a kennel maid at a greyhound stadium. She told Mr. Gabbert that she used to "dope" dogs with drugs so as to make them run slow or fast. She said she did twenty dogs in one day. But she came under the notice not only of the journalist, but of the police as well, and a Detective Inspector Peter Segrou took charge of the police enquiries. She made a statement to the police. In consequence, it was decided to prosecute a gang of men who were supposed to be behind this dog doping. One in particular was called Peter Hubbard, and another Ronald Maxwell.- Margo Murray was to be a witness for the prosecution. Those about her realised that, if it was discovered that she was to be a witness for the prosecution, she might be in danger from members of the gang. She might be kidnapped or "got at" in some way. So the journalist, Mr. Gabbert, arranged for her accommodation. He found her a room in Elsham Road, Shepherds Bush. He paid the rent of the room and gave her a little pocket money, and did all he could to see that she was not approached by members of the gang. He had someone stationed at her house for hours on end. He did this with the approval of the police. About Tuesday, 26th October 1965, however, Margo Murray left the house in Elsham Road, Shepherds Bush, and Mr. Gabbert lost her. She depended him two or three days later, and he met her in a cafe; but she did not come back then. She was away for six days. He found her again on Monday, 1st November, 1965. He took her once more under his care. He found her freshaccommodation, and moved her from place to place all over the country. She was an important witness for the prosecution, and he did not want to lose her. The expenses were born in part out of public funds. In May 1966, two of the members of the gang, Peter Hubbard and Ronald Maxwell, were prosecuted at the Old Bailey. Margo Murray gave evidence for the prosecution, They were convicted and sentenced each to five years imprisonment. Margo Murray went back to Canada. That is the end of the story so far as she is concerned.
It is obvious why the journalist, Mr. Gabbert, took all this interest in the girl. He wanted to get a story for his newspaper. In the midst of all those happenings, he thought he had collected enough material. So he wrote an article for "The People" newspaper. It appeared on Sunday, 7th November, 1965. It was blazoned with headings and filled the front page and inside pages too. It was headed:
"Dog Racing Sensation. We name the dopers. These men boss the gang, by Michael Gabbert.
Today we are able to unmask the most highly-organised gang of dog dopers in the history of British Greyhound Racing".
Later on in the article they name some of the gang. In particular Peter Hubbard and Ronald Maxwell. On one of the inside pages there was a photograph of a woman with a dog. It was not a clear photograph. It would be difficult to recognise who it was. Above it there is the caption: "Once I did twenty dogs in one day!"; and underneath it the words: "Margaret Murray: she was worked into the Walthamstow Kennels via the Labour Exchange".
No one complained of that article in "The People". But the next day, Monday, 8th November 1965, "The Sun" newspaper published the article complained of. Mr. Johnny Morgan says it is a libel against him. He is not named in it. But he says it bears an innuendo against him. This is it:
"DOG-DOPING GIRL GOES INTO HIDING.
By Peter Campling.
"A girl who is likely to be a key witness in a dog- doping scandal went into hiding yesterday after threats were made on her life.
Margo Murray left her lodgings in Elsham Road, Shepherds Bush, accompanied by two men.
It is estimated that the doping gangs have made more than £250,000 in the last few months with coups all over the country. They are known to have operated at tracks in Ramsgate, Slough, Reading and the Midlands.
Many arrests are expected in the next few weeks.
Miss Murray, a 25-year-old Canadian, was kidnapped last week by members of the gang when they heard she had made a statement to police.
She was kept in a house in Finchley, but was eventually allowed to leave when she promised that she would return to Canada.
Before she went into hiding following an exposure of the doping gang in "The People" yesterday, Miss Murray said: 'I told the police everything. The gang got me to dope more than twenty dogs at Walthamston one night'.
Scotland Yard's Flying Squad went to several houses, in the Hammersmith, Kilburn and Finchley areas".
That is the article which Mr. Johny Morgan says is a libel on him. There is one further article to which I must refer. It appeared on the following Sunday, November 14th, in "The People", but it is not complained of as a libel. It is only material here because it mentions a man called Colin Donelan. "The People" gave a photograph of this man Donelan, and with it the statement:
"Colin Donelan showed "The People" investigators how he could collect drugs suitable for doping dogs from a willing chemist Donelan admitted to "The People" that he was a close associate of Hubbard, and other dog dopers".
It appeared from the evidence that Donelan had a long criminal record with many convictions for dishonesty. He was described as the "local villain".
There is no mention in any of those articles of Mr. Johnny Morgan. So let me turn to him. Mr. Morgan has had a varied career. He has been a boxer and a wrestler. He retired from wrestling in 1964 and became a novelist. He has written books.Early in 1965 he was in touch with Odhams Press Ltd. He wished to write about his experiences on cruises. In this connection he met Mr. Gabbert of "The People". Mr. Johnny Morgan had also met Donelan. He had bought a car through him, and knew something of his chracacter. Mr. Morgan suggested to Gabbert that it might be possible to get material from Donelan for an article on prison security.
Such is the background. Now I turn to the point in the case. Were the words in "The Sun" reasonably capable of being understood to refer to the plaintiff? There was no reference to him in the article itself. So the plaintiff had to rely on extrinsic circumstances. The plaintiff in his statement of claim gave particulars of the facts and matter upon which he were relied to show that the words were understood to refer to him. The first group of particulars were held by this Court to be insufficient for the purpose. He then delivered amended particulars. These came up again to this Court. It was held that these amended particulars should not be struck out. It was arguable, said the Court, that, if those amended particulars were proved, the words were reasonably capable of being under stood to refer to the plaintiff. So the case went for trial. At the trial Mr. Justice O'Connor seems to have thought that, on the second interlocutory appeal, this Court had ruled that the words were so capable, and that he was bound by the decision of this Court to leave the case to the jury. I have afraid that he him under stood the ruling of this Court. All that it decided was that it was "arguable": leaving the point to be argued out fully before the Judge on the evidence as it was given before him. So the Judge ought to have ruled himself whether the words were so capable or not. We should have liked to have had his own opinion on it, But we have not the benefit of it. So we have to take the task on ourselves. We have to see whether, in the light of all the evidence, the words were, or were not, reasonably capable of being understood to refer to the plaintiff.
These facts were proved in evidence: On Tuesday, 26thOctober 1965, Mr. Johnny Morgan fetched Miss Margo Murray from her lodging in Elsham Road, Shepherds Bush. She went with him to his flat at 5 Heathfield Park, Willesden, and stayed in the flat from 26th October to 1st November, sleeping there at night and going out with him in the daytime. None of that helps his case, because up to that point no one else knew of it. So Mr. Morgan relies upon the events of Thursday, 28th October, when six men saw him in the company of Miss Margo Murray. These six men were called as witnesses, and said that they understood the words in "The Sun" to refer to Mr. Johnny Morgan. So I must describe what happened on that day.
On that day, 26th October, Mr. Johnny Morgan was lunching in the El Rio restaurant in Walm Lane, Willesden, with Miss Margo Murray and Mr. Donelan. In came the first of the six. He was Peter Wood, a detective constable, Mr. Morgan introduced the girl to him, and she told him the story about the dog doping. As she told it, she was crying and dabbing her eyes with her handkerchief. Then come up the second of the six. He was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- A-G v Wain and Others (No 1)
- Derek Gwyn Davies and Others; Lee Kuan Yew
- Asia Fishing Industry Pte Ltd; to Thomas
- Siddons Pty Ltd v the Stanley Works Pty Ltd
-
DUTY OF TRIAL JUDGE IN DEFAMATION CASES
...defamatory meaning is a question of law and is therefore one calling for the decision of the Court or Judge. See Morgan v. Odham Press (1970) 1 W.L.R. 820 (C.A.) (1971) 1 W.L.R. 1239 (H.L.) If the words are so capable, then it is a question for the Jury whether the words do in fact convey a......