Morgan v Odhams Press Ltd [1971] 1 WLR 1239; [1971] 2 All ER 1156
Summary: Libel and slander; newspaper; article capable of being understood as referring to claimant
Facts
The defendant was a journalist collecting material on a dog doping gang story, whereby he put a key witness (who agreed to talk to him) under his surveillance while investigations were ongoing. The witness left the defendant’s lodgings to spend a few days with the claimant with whom she was seen in public. The witness was later taken back to the defendant’s lodgings until after some of the gang members had been convicted. The defendant published his story, which included a photograph of the witness with her name also indicated. A later article suggested that the witness was kidnapped by members of the gang – the article did not mention the claimant by name or description.
Law Teacher writing support
Writing a law essay?
We choose a writer who is an expert in your area of law and qualified to at least the academic level you select. Most of our writers hold a master’s degree or PhD, have teaching experience, or both.
Send us your question and, if you wish, any marking criteria. We’ll write an essay to your instructions.
Issues
The claimant brought an action for libel, arguing that by innuendo the article associated him with the dog doping gang and thus the kidnapping. At trial, the judge put the case before the jury as words of the article were capable of being understood as referring to the claimant. The jury found in favour of the claimant. The defendants appealed. The Court of Appeal allowed their appeal. It held that any reasonable man would have been prevented by the discrepancies in the story from thinking that the article referred to the claimant. It also held that in order to become defamatory, the article should have contained some clear indications that it referred to the claimant – which was not the case here. The claimant appealed to the House of Lords.
Decision/Outcome
The House of Lords held that one must first consider the nature of the article and the class of readers likely to read it. Then, one might go on to determine the impression the article would have had on the mind of the ordinary sensible reader, who read the article casually and not in expectation of precision. The question was whether readers with knowledge of the special facts could reasonably understand the words as referring to the claimant. Lord Reid rejected the requirement for a key or pointer within the article itself: evidence of facts outside the article could establish the connection. The claimant succeeded on liability. However, a new trial was ordered on damages. The jury should have been warned that only the small number of readers who knew the special facts could have understood the article as referring to him; the newspaper’s large circulation did not itself measure the damage to his reputation.
