873
FI/30/1.
B
20th January, 1977.
3
11.00 a.m1. Court res wes.
Sr. Appearances as before. Jury present.
W.
C
COUNT: Gentlemen and members of the jury, this is a fairly lengthy ruling and 4. it is also delivered from handwritten notes and you will pardon me if I ogidruro stumble occasionally.
satics .be
Exh.D.15.
Exh.D.6.
TUNDVOLUPADVI
apt ̄¡ir.. Donnelly
:
submits that there is no material evidence upon the isus between the parties fit to go before the jury. The plaintiff is a police officer who at present holds the rank of sergeant. He has been in the "Folice Force since 1952. He complains of statements made com erning him
in two separate reports which it is admitted, were published by the defendant. The first of these is a confintial memorandum fron the * Adefendant why was then Commandant of the Police Training School at Aberdeen to the Commissioner of Police. This is e report to the Commissioner of Police dated the 20th of November, 1968 and it contains an exhaustive and critical assessment of the plaintiff's performance generally upon a course for candidates aspiring to the rank of inspector which took place at the Police Training School between June and November 1960. The report recommends that the plaintiff should not be promoted. It is conceded by the plaintiff that this communication is one of a kind which it was the defendant's duty to submit and which it was the -Comissioner's duty to receive. The evidence makes it clear in addition that this was a document containing matters published on a privileged occasion. The only words complained of in this document refer to an incident involving the plaintiff when one of his instructors on the course reported to the defendant that he had occasion to suspect that the plaintiff had cheated in an examination. Referring to this, the defendant said in paragraph 3 of his memo: "However, with one exception, his results have been 11 to 12 below the class average. The exception in viich he obtained an outstandingly good result is the subject of
BE/11947/53 of Aberdeen Police Station." The plaintiff alleges that these words bear a defamatory meaning per innuendo in that they would convey to anyone familiar with police procedures the meaning that he had obtained his good marks by cheating. It is objected that this plea is not sustainable even on the face of it since the words, if they bear a special meaning of any kind, can only be said to bear the meaning that dinquiry has been instituted and that cheating is therefore suspected. so doubt that is true, but the words are capable of ring a defamatory.
• neuning even if understood in that sense if addressed to someone who would sq understand them and if not covered by any of the justifying circumstances which in law would protect the person who published them. What the defendant says is that they are covered by being published upon aw. occasion of privilege and this is in fact conceded by the plaintiff. The plaintiff's case as to this allged libel is that the words are not bug and were not true to the defendant's knowledge and that they were
ablished with a dishonest motive.
:
The second alleged libel is contained in a lengthy report signed by the defendant on behalf of the Commissioner of Police and submitted, as it at is conceded, to the Colonial Secretary on the 21st of March, 1970. It is
common ground that this report was sent as a result of the fact that the
E
F
G
H
K
L
M
N
P
R
T
SO 223
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.