080
PL/30/3.
A
B
plaintiff's request for an interview with the Colonial secretary vas received by the Commissioner, that is, about the th of January, 1970, and, in the event, he piltly anticipated that the interview with the Colonial Secretary concerned the subject of the plaintiff's complaint about his relegation and the attendant complaint, already known to the Commissioner, concerning police corruption. The report purported to So cover the whole of the plaintife's career and provided it could not be Bookeren shown on other grounds to have exceeded the privilege of the occasion, HAIR:Fsuch as by falsity or patent spite, it was precisely the kind of thing
that the Colonial Secretary would require ́under Regulation 472 in dealing with such complaints. Secondly, the plaintiff says that the defendant was not entitled to address the Colonial Secretary on behalf of the Commissioner. This contention is no better foumed. There never has been any suggestion to support the idea that the Commisioner disapproved kwa of 'this action or even that he was .."unaware of it and would not have approved had he been so aware. In addition, there was evidence given by Mr. Grace who consulted with the defendant on the preparation of the "repor", to the Colonial Secretary and who was, at that time, Assistant
Commissioner of Police/Establishment at Police Headquarters, to the effect that it was within his power to deal with such matters and to delegate his duty to the officers of the defenant's rank whih, in fact, Mr. Grace did in this instance - without first seeking the approval of the Commissioner.
This evidence of Mr. Grace was supported by that of Mr. Mright-Nooth, himself a former Deputy Commissioner. Indeed, I am not sure that the plaintiff himself has seriously challenged the general protocol in these matters. Rather does it appear that he was calling into quetion the actual manifestation of it in this instance. I think his objection under this heading is related more nearly to the basic contention which undalies his whole claim and which ascribes to the defendant involvement with others in a wide-spre ad collusion of the most reprehensible.. kind.
ኑ
:
a
Fublication of both doctaments complained of is admitted; and, frem what has already been said, it is clear that they were both published under circumstances which attracted to them the defence commonly referred to as 'qualified privileg?'. It is therefore for the plaintiff to show actual or express malice in the defendant in order to make good his claim of libel. As I sce it; this is in truth the sole issue in the case. Mr. Donnelly complains of the plaintiff's pleadings. He has some reason
to do so. They have not been professionally drawn. The court file discloses that they have gradually evolved under the pressure of various interlocutory upheavals from what might be described as a state of chaos into a condition of comparative order. They remain, however, distinctly homespun. Notwithstanding counsel's animadversions upon them, however, the Statement of Claim, the Ely to the Defence and the Further and Better Particulars of Malice do nevertheless disclose a simple issue of fact which touches both of the confidential reports which have given rise to these proceedings. It is a viable issue in as much as it alleges, although somewhat indirectly, that the reason for the making of the 1968 report to the Comissioner was the refusal of the plaintiff to pay a certain sum of money for his commission pursuant to a corrupt scheme at the Police Training School to which the defendant is said to have been a party. It is the plaintiff's refusal to co-operate in this same scheme which is said to have afforded to the defendant his motive for the publication of his report to the Colonial Secretary in 1970. The plaintiff's case is, in regard to that, that he was trying to bring this abuse to light by seeking assistance from the highest
C
E
F
G
H
J
L
M
N
0
P
R
T
U
V