Begley v Irish Press Ltd

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Kingsmill Moore J.
• Judgment Date: 19 December 1962
• Neutral Citation: 1930 WJSC-HC 15
• Date: 19 December 1962
• Court: High Court

1930 WJSC-HC 15

Chief Justice

Kingsmill Moore J.

Haugh J.

Begley v. Irish Press Ltd

Begley

v.

Irish Press Ltd.

Begley v. Irish Press Ltd. - Appeal from verdict for £2,500 for damages for libel - Kenny J. & Jury - Second - named Defendant critic of broadcast compared by Plaintiff - Judgment by Kingsmill Moore J. - Allow appeal - new trial on damages only (nem.diss.

Kingsmill Moore J.

:-

1 The plaintiff may be described as a free lance of broadcasting. For eight months in 1953 he was an announcer for Radio Eireann; then, until March, 1958, he produced sponsored programmes also on Radio Eireann; from March, 1958 to May, 1959 he acted as an announcer on the staff of the British Forces network in Germany; returning to Ireland he again produced a sponsored programme till the end of 1960, when the sponsors decided to discontinue it. After being for a time unemployed in February, 1961, he was offered by Radio Eireann an engagement to act as compere for four concerts to be broadcast by the light orchestra. These concerts were presented primarily for listeners on radio sets throughout the country, but a limited audience were invited to the concert hall to provide atmosphere and background by their applause. The task assigned to the plaintiff as compare was to introduce the various musical items with short notes and comments, and, in addition, it fell to him to give suggestions and instructions to the audience in the hall with a view to ensuring their proper co-operation in the performance.

2 The third concert was performed on April 22nd,1961 and we have been furnished with a copy of the remarks intended to be addressed to the audience in the hall and with the programme notes intended to be broadcast in the course of the concert. It appears, however, that the copy furnished to us, which is a copy of a script prepared before the broadcast, does not completely reproduce what was actually said, as one of the musical items had to be altered at the last moment which required a corresponding alteration in the comment, and as the opening remarks to the audience in the hall were amplified by a few words concerning the effect of the red light (which indicates that broadcasting has begun), an exhortation to the studio audience to feel at east despite the red light, and a request that they should greet the conductor with sustained applause. Such applause, it was explained to us, was necessary to create an atmosphere for outside listeners. Apart from these minor additions and alterations it was not suggested that the words spoken to the audience inside the hall or broadcast to the listening public varied in any appreciable degree from the copy script furnished to us. This copy was before the jury.

3 On the 24th April an article appeared in the Evening Press (a paper owned by the first named Defendants, the Irish Press) purporting to be a critique of the concert performed on April 22nd. The writer was John O'Donovan, the second-named Defendant, who is chief sub-editor and deputy editor for the Evening Press and is also the musical critic of that paper. The first third of the article dealt in a light manner with some of the items of the concert and it then went on to criticise the Plaintiff in the following words, which constitute the alleged libel.

"COMPERE"

"Saturday's compere was Patrick Begley, the former R.E. Announcer, "whose compering was, in matter and manner, more precious than "rubies". I don't think Mr. Begley has managed to get the proper "feel" of the atmosphere at the R.E. concerts, although I would not "consider it worth raising at this early stage were it not that I "doubt he is likely to do so in the near future. Mr. Begley is "within his rights in deciding to select as his model the most "sepulchral form of old-style B.B.C. news announcing, but which "even then was reserved for such special occasions as the demise of "the monarch or the Declaration of War."

"BE HANGED".

"It obviously gives Mr. Begley great pleasure to speak in this "manner, but his enjoyment of this pleasure occasionally becomes "so intense that he loses the thread of his remarks and is in "danger of coming to a standstill. This is, in itself, bad "compering. But Mr. Begley aggravates the fault by doing such "things as ordering the audience to relax and to "greet" the "conductor with sustained applause". "Now, I'll be hanged if I obey such an order (and I a critic tool) and I hereby give notice "that I shall applaud just as much or as little as I feel disposed "to, even though Mr. B. may arrange in future to go the whole hog "and have Big Ben strike nine before he intones his commands".

J. O'D.

The Plaintiff instituted an action for libel. The only defence which it is necessary to mention is that of "Fair Comment" which was pleaded as follows:-

"In so far as the said words consist of statements of "fact the said words are in their natural and ordinary "meaning, and without the said alleged meanings, true "in substance and in fact; and in so far as the said "words consist of expressions of opinion they are fair "comment made in good faith and without malice on a "matter of public interest."

4 When the action came for trial the Plaintiff put his case in two ways. First that the excoriating nature of the language showed a personal illwill towards him: second that, even if this were not so, the language taken in the light of the circumstances passed beyond the range of fair and honest comment, was reckless, and was prompted by motives other than a desire to express an unbiased though adverse criticism. He was not however, able to produce any evidence of positive ill-will other than such as was provided by the wording of the article. The defendant, John O'Donovan, on his front endeavoured to show that the article was no more than an expression of honestly held opinions. The jury might think that his endeavour was not remarkably successful.

5 The trial judge left to the jury the following questions -

6 (1) Did the Defendants publish the libel.

7 (2) Is...