Tort Tut 16 Defamation I

Bruiser v Jude
y

Defamation: the publication of a statement which tends to lower a person in the estimates of right thinking members of society generally, or which tends to make them shun or avoid that person (Winfield)

B is likely to sue J in a libel action because the statement is in a permanent form, i.e. on the poster libel = actionable per se no need to show damage 3 elements that B must establish (on balance of probabilities): 1. The statement must be capable of being defamatory and actually defamatory 2. The defamatory statement must refer to C 3. The defamatory statement must be published/communicated

y y

Who can sue?

o

Governmental bodies, i.e. the police department, cannot sue (Derbyshire CC v Times Newspaper). But B, as an individual policeman, can sue.

 The statement must be defamatory

y

2 enquiries:
o

(1) what is the meaning of the words used? - whether the statement is capable of being defamatory - question for judge (2) is that meaning defamatory of C? - question for jury

The meaning of the words:

o

Ordinary and natural meaning (Harvey v French) False innuendo - not literally but an implied or extended meaning, eg. slang, double meaning, pun, sarcasm (Allsop v Church of England Newspaper; Plumb v Jeyes Sanitary Compounds)

Tort Tut 16 Defamation I

o

True innuendo - additional extrinsic knowledge is needed for audience to understand the true meaning of the statement (Cassidy v Daily Mirror; Tolley v JS Fry & Sons)

X If the audience has the extra knowledge about the incident happened to Thug and knew

Bruiser was in charge in order to understand what the poster mean, it'd be a true innuendo (Cassidy v Daily Mirror).
y

It is likely that at least one person in the audience would have come across this incident if it is in the news.

X If it is not in the news and the audience is not aware of the relation between Thug and

Bruiser, it cannot be a true innuendo because the audience has no extra knowledge to understand the true meaning of the poster.
y

Instead, it can be an ordinary and natural meaning of the words. "Who killed Thug? Who are the guilty men?" is obvious enough (Harvey v French).

X C might want to argue the picture of a pig with a black eye depicts him because he is

called "Bruiser", the black eye is an analogy of a bruised eye which indirectly draws inference to him. The picture also suggests that he is stupid like a pig.
X The 2 questions on the poster suggest that it is ironic for him being a police constable

who is supposed to deter crimes rather than committing crimes. It also suggests that C is more violent and guilty than Thug.

Whether the words are defamatory:

o

material used tends to lower C in the estimation of right-thinking members of society (Sims v Stretch) Material that would tend to lead to lead to C being shunned or avoided (Yousoupoff v MGM) Material that would tend to expose C to hatred, ridicule or contempt (Berkoff v Burchill) Requires a degree of seriousness (Thornton v Telegraph Media Group)

Tort Tut 16 Defamation I

X The meaning is likely to cause right thinking people to think less of C, who mistreated a

criminal while he was in custody (Sims v Stretch).

X It may also cause hatred, ridicule or contempt to C (Berkoff v Burchill)

 The defamatory statement must refer to Claimant

y

The statement need not to specifically name C so long as it is recognisable that it refers to him. The publisher's intention is irrelevant (Hulton v Jones) The statement may not contain C's name at all, provided audience would take it as referring to him (Cassidy v Daily Mirror Newspaper)

X The bruised eyed pig combined with the question "who killed Thug?" is likely to have

identified Bruiser. His name is Bruiser and he had been in charge of Thug (Cassidy).
X The question "who are the guilty men?" used plural instead of singular word form, which

suggests not only Bruiser himself was the target but the entire team led by Bruiser was the subject Jude was trying to refer to.
y y y

General rule: defamation of a class/group of people cannot bring a claim. BUT Individual members of that class/group can if the words used indicate particular individuals or the group is sufficiently small (Knuppfer v London Express Newspaper (young Russian being liars); Foxcroft v Lacey (conspired to commit murder))

X The police team that handled Thug is likely to be a small group, therefore, individual

member can be identified (Foxcroft)

X :. If the audience have extra knowledge of the relation between Thug and Bruiser & his

team, they would likely take it as referring to them (by the bruised eye and the questions "who killed Thug? Who are the guilty men?") (Cassidy)
X But if no audience actually knew there is a police constable named Bruiser, they will not

recognise the poster was referring to him

Tort Tut 16 Defamation I

X However, given the threshold is so low, it is likely there will be at least 1 audience who

can recognise the poster was referring to Bruiser.

 The defamatory statement must be published/communicated

y

Publication need not be to the public - 1 person is sufficient

X The poster is hanged on the official notice board at the university which is clearly

published

Provided that the audience has extra knowledge about the Thug incidence and Bruiser and his teammates' involvement in relation to Thug, and the team is sufficiently small, B and each individual teammate can sue Jude. But we are only concerned with B in this question libel. B can sue J in the tort of