Richards v Naum
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | THE MASTER OF THE ROLLS,Lord Justice Diplock,Lord Justice Russell,The Master Of The Rolls |
| Judgment Date | 13 October 1966 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1966] EWCA Civ J1013-2 |
| Date | 13 October 1966 |
| Court | Court of Appeal |
[1966] EWCA Civ J1013-2
The Master of the Rolls (Lord Denning)
Lord Justice Diplock and
Lord Justice Russell
In The Supreme Court of Judicature
Court of Appeal
From Mr Justice James
Mr LEONARD LEWIS (instructed by Messrs Bax Gibb & Co.) appeared as Counsel for the Appellant.
Mr PETER BRISTOW, Q.C. and Mr NIGEL BRIDGE (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared as Counsel for the Respondent.
Mr Richards was a civilian employed by the United States Air Force in their Office of Special Investigations in this country. He was described as a civilian investigative officer. That means that he was in the Security Service. The defendant, Colonel Naum, was a colonel in the United States Air Force and the Commander of the Office of Special Investigations. In September 1963 Colonel Naum reported to the General that Mr Richards was redundant. Thereupon Mr Richards was dismissed from the service. He appealed to higher authority. While his appeal was pending, Colonel Naum wrote a directive addressed to Mr Richards telling him to read through particular regulations, in particular the regulations dealing with subversive activities. That letter was published to the typist and other people handling it. It is said also to have been put on Mr Richards' file.
In these circumstances Mr Richards has brought an action in the Courts in this country against Colonel Naum. He alleges that the original report (that he was redundant) was an injurious falsehood, maliciously made with intent to get him dismissed and that he was discharged in consequence. He also alleges that the directive was a libel on him and actionable here, because it conveys the innuendo that he was suspected of subversive activities. Colonel Naum, through his advisers, denies the allegations. He also prays in aid two points of law which he says are available to him so as to avoid a long and difficult trial.
The first point is that under the Visiting Forces Act, 1952, Section 6, it is enacted that no proceedings shall be entertained by any United Kingdom Court with regard to a person's discharge from the service of a visiting force. That point may be quite arguable in regard to the claim for injurious falsehood, but as far as I can see it is almost unarguable in regard to the directive which is said to be a libel.
The second point made on behalf of Colonel Naum is that the communications were absolutely privileged in the Courts under the common law of England, and therefore he is not liable to besued for them. Colonel Naum asks for this point to be considered as a preliminary point: because if it is right, it puts an end to the whole action.
The authorities do show that a report by a very senior military or naval officer to his superior is absolutely privileged. But nothing else is settled. It is doubtful whether reports by the middle or lower ranks of the army and navy are absolutely privileged. The middle ranks of the police do not appear to be absolutely privileged. It has been held by the High Court of Australia that a report made by an inspector of police to his superior officer is not absolutely privileged, see Gibbons v. Duffell (1932) 47 Commonwealth Law Reports, p. 520. It is a nice question whether the secret service should be treated like the police force or like the army or navy. Apart from these difficulties about our own English Forces in this country, it is very difficult to say how far this absolute privilege applies to the visiting forces of a friendly foreign power. In Szaiatnay-Stacho v. Fink, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Jet-Age Construction Sdn Bhd v Module Construction Sdn Bhd, HC
-
Fayed v Al-Tajir
...I believe that Szalatnay-Stacho v. Fink does not preclude this court from tackling the present problem de novo. 31 Finally, there was Richards v. Naum (1967) 1 Queen's Bench 620. The subject-matter of the alleged libel was a report by a colonel in the office of special investigations in the......
-
Simon Blake v Laurence Fox
...Phillips; and “The disadvantages of trial with a jury in cases where the law is complicated were noted as long ago as Richards v Naum [1967] 1 QB 620, 626 and 627. These disadvantages have increased in recent years with the increasing development and complexity of the law of defamation. Th......
- Taylor v Director of the Serious Fraud Office