Sonia Szurma Sutcliffe v Pressdram Ltd
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | THE MASTER OF THE ROLLS,LORD JUSTICE NOURSE,LORD JUSTICE RUSSELL |
| Judgment Date | 19 October 1989 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1989] EWCA Civ J1019-6 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Docket Number | 89/0979 |
| Date | 19 October 1989 |
[1989] EWCA Civ J1019-6
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
(MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL DAVIES AND A JURY)
Royal Courts of Justice
The Master of The Rolls
(Lord Donaldson)
Lord Justice Nourse
Lord Justice Russell
89/0979
MR. GAVIN LIGHTMAN Q.C. and MISS ADRIENNE PAGE (instructed by Messrs. Schilling & Lom) appeared for the Appellants (Defendants).
MR. GEOFFREY SHAW (instructed by Messrs. Fisher Meredith) appeared for the Respondent (Plaintiff).
In the judgments which we are about to hand down, we give our reasons for:
-
(a) dismissing "Private Eye's"application for leave to adduce further evidence on the hearing of the appeal;
-
(b) dismissing "Private Eye's"appeal on liability, that is to say against the jury's verdicts that Mrs. Sutcliffe was libelled in 1981 and again in 1983; and
-
(c) allowing "Private Eye's"appeal against the jury's award of £600,000 as damages.
It will be open to Mrs. Sutcliffe to have the damages re-assessed by a new jury and, whilst all questions of the admissibility of evidence on any such re-assessment will be for the decision of the presiding judge, we have sought in our judgments to assist by laying down certain ground rules.
When it was indicated to Michael Davies J. that "Private Eye"might wish to appeal, he had, as is usual, to consider what should be the effect of the jury's verdict meanwhile. Should it be "stayed", that is to say, be ineffective until the result of the appeal was known? He decided that Mrs. Sutcliffe should be entitled to be paid £25,000, but no more, pending the appeal and made it abundantly clear that this did not reflect any view which he might have as to the correctness of the jury's assessment.
Mr. Lightman on behalf of "Private Eye"told us that, if, as has happened, we were to order that the damages be re-assessed, he would leave it to us to decide whether the £25,000 should be repaid to "Private Eye"or retained by Mrs. Sutcliffe until the result of the re-assessment was known. We have expressed no view about this in our judgments, because we also wish to avoid a situation in which we could possibly influence the new jury's re-assessment of the damages. For that reason we propose to go into camera to deal with this small corner of the appeal.
Counsel addressed their Lordships. In the course of the submissions it was decided that it was not necessary for the court to go into camera.
The Appeal
Pressdram Limited, as publishers of "Private Eye", appeal against the verdicts of the jury and their award to Mrs. Sutcliffe of £600,000 damages for libel. They also seek leave to adduce fresh evidence upon the hearing of the appeal. The grounds of appeal are the discovery of new evidence, that the judge (Michael Davies J.) misdirected the jury on issues relating to damages and that, whether or not there was any such misdirection and whether or not the fresh evidence is taken into account, the amount of the award is so excessive that it cannot be allowed to stand. It is common ground that, should the appeal be allowed, there must be a re-trial, at least as to the amount of the damages, since "Private Eye"is not content that this court should substitute its view on damages for that of a jury and the adoption of such a course requires the consent of both parties.
Background
Mrs. Sutcliffe is the wife of Peter Sutcliffe, sometimes called the "Yorkshire Ripper", who was arrested on 2nd January 1981 and, in May 1981, was convicted of 13 counts of murder and seven counts of attempted murder. The murders had begun in 1975 and had attracted very widespread public concern. With the arrest of Sutcliffe, journalists representing a world-wide spectrum of the media converged upon Yorkshire seeking to interview anyone who had the remotest connection with the case or with Sutcliffe. According to the Press Council report, within four days "the first rumblings of public concern about the conduct of the press and broadcasters was reported"and by 7th January 1981 the Press Council announced that it would hold an inquiry.
At about the same time the local evening newspapers began to criticise "cheque book journalism"which was described as having "hit Bradford in the battle for exclusive stories from Mr. Peter Sutcliffe's relatives". On 16th January 1981 this led to a local Member of Parliament asking the Attorney General to introduce legislation to restrict the publication of stories obtained by contractual arrangements between arrested persons' relations, neighbours and friends and the press or television.
It was against this background of growing public outcry against this practice that, on 30th January 1981, "Private Eye"published an article which contained the following words:
"Street of shame
The Daily Mail appears to be leading in the squalid race to 'tie up' the Sutcliffe family. While lorry-driver Peter Sutcliffe is remanded in custody, his wife Sonia has made a deal with the Mail worth £250,000…Lord Mere's merry men…have been 'showing the chequebook' in the North. They booked into the Stirk House Hotel…and entertained Sonia Sutcliffe and other members of her family…They were 'relaxed as they enjoyed…wine and a selection of mouth watering entrees'…Their discussions—and carousing—went on late into the night…"
In May 1981 the parents of one of Sutcliffe's victims wrote to Her Majesty the Queen expressing their concern about cheque book journalism. Whether or not the reply was intended to be published, it was. Her Deputy Private Secretary wrote, saying:
"I am commanded by Her Majesty the Queen to acknowledge your letter of February 21st and begin by offering to you both
Her Majesty's very heartfelt sympathy at the tragic death of your daughter.
Her Majesty can well understand your feelings about the proposal, if true, that the Daily Mail is planning to publish the stories of the man accused of her murder told by members of his family and pay them substantial sums of money to do so.
Although there is nothing illegal in what is proposed and therefore there is no way in which Her Majesty could properly intervene, she certainly shares in the sense of distaste which right-minded people will undoubtedly feel."
Two days after reports of the contents of this letter appeared in the national press, a fire bomb was thrown at Mrs. Sutcliffe's house.
In February 1983 the Press Council published the results of its inquiry. It expressed the view that:
"Just as it is wrong that the evildoer should benefit from his crime, so it is wrong that persons associated with the criminal should derive financial benefit from trading on that association…The practice is particularly abhorrent where the crime is one of violence and payment involves callous disregard for the feelings of victims and their families."
It was within days of this condemnation that "Private Eye", on 11th February 1983, published a further article containing the following words:
"Private Eye January 30 1981
'The Daily Mail appears to be leading in the squalid race to 'tie up' the Sutcliffe family. While lorry-driver Peter Sutcliffe is remanded in custody, his wife Sonia has made a deal with the Mail worth £250,000'.
THE MEDIA overlooked one important fact about the Press Council's exposure of Fleet Street behaviour in the Sutcliffe case. The investigation might never have started had it not been for 'Private Eye's' story about how the Daily Mail was leading the squalid race to purchase the mass murderer's wife's memoirs with offers in the vicinity of £250,000. It was this report, the Council now confirms, which prompted Mrs. Doreen Hill's initial complaint and aroused a massive public outcry from Elizabeth II and all manner of her subjects…
The Press Council turned about and delivered its decision:
'The Council has been given assurances by four editorial executives of the Daily Mail that they knew of the editor's decision that the paper would not pay any money to Mrs. Sutcliffe at an early stage in January. The Council has concluded it should accept these assurances.'
The Council, in five brief lines, simply censures the Mail for setting out to deceive Mrs. Sutcliffe. The awful suggestion that its executives consistently deceived the British public and the Press Council itself is, in this fashion, laid unequivocally to rest. 'Private Eye' entirely accepts the Press Council's judgment in this matter. It is an object lesson in how circumstantial evidence, however strong, may incriminate totally innocent men. Any other verdict would have been unthinkable. One reason why it is unthinkable is that Mr. Alwyn Robinson, the Managing Director of the Mail, was one of those who assured the Press Council that 'I was aware, early in 1981, of the decision not to offer any money to Mrs. Sutcliffe'. This must be correct. After all, Mr. Alwyn Robinson is Vice-chairman of the Press Council…"
And on another page:
"One unthinkable and unworthy explanation may suggest itself to over-suspicious persons. It should be stated, if only to be dismissed out of hand. It hinges on the premise, now unequivocally rejected by the Press Council's decision, that the 'Private Eye' story was true and the Mail's negotiations with Sonia and her solicitors were in earnest."
The Action
The writ was not issued until January 1987, only just within the six-year limitation period. The explanation offered to the jury for this delay was that Mrs. Sutcliffe had no money with which to pay the costs of such an action and had other even more pressing...
To continue reading
Request your trial