R v M'Hugh

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 26 November 1900
• Date: 26 November 1900
• Court: Queen's Bench Division (Ireland)

Reg.

and

M'Hugh (1).

Q. B. Div.

CASES

DETERMINED BY

THE QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION

OF

THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE IN IRELAND,

AND ON APPEAL THEREFROM IN

THE COURT OF APPEAL,

AND BY

THE COURT FOR CROWN CASES RESERVED.

1901.

Information ex officio — Libel — Seditious libel — Pleading — Omission to use the word “seditious” — Plea of justification, under 6 & 7 Vict. c. 96, s. 6 — Plea denying malice, under 51 & 52 Vict. c. 64, s. 4.

An information exhibited for seditious libel is not bad because the words “seditious,” “seditiously,” are not expressly used, if it clearly appear on the face of the information that the publication was with seditious intent.

To an information for seditious libel, it is not open to the defendant to plead justification under Lord Campbell's Act (6 & 7 Vict. c. 96), s. 6, nor fair comment and absence of malice, under 51 & 52 Vict. c. 64, s. 4.

The following authorities were cited: R. v. Duffy (1); Ex parte O'Brien (2); R. v. Watson (3); R. v. White (4); R. v. Munslow (5); Davison v. Duncan (6); Popham v. Pickburn (7); Reg. v. Gray (8); Stephen's Criminal Law, p. 70 (the definitions of “seditious conspiracy” “seditious libel,” “seditious intent”); 1 Russell on Crimes, pp. 622–624; Archbold (ed. 1900), pp. 943, 1041, 1067; Steele v. Brannan (9); R. v. Perrott (10).

Demurrer to the defendant's pleas to an ex officio information at the prosecution of the Attorney-General. The defendant was

the proprietor of a Sligo newspaper, and the publications in question had been printed in his journal.

The information set forth, in effect, that at the Sligo Winter Assizes, 1899, two men, A. Muffeny and A. Maguire, were indicted, tried, and convicted, before Andrews, J., and a jury of the county, on a charge of conspiracy, and that the defendant M'Hugh,

“being an evil disposed person, wickedly and maliciously contriving and intending to bring the administration of justice in this kingdom into contempt, and to scandalize and vilify the said William Drennan Andrews and the jurors by whom the said issue was so tried as aforesaid, and to cause it to be believed that the said jurors had violated their oaths as such jurors, on the 16th day of December, in the year aforesaid wickedly and maliciously did print and publish, and cause to be printed and published, a certain false, wicked, scandalous and malicious libel of and concerning the administration of justice in this kingdom, and of and concerning the said Right Honorable William Drennan Andrews and the jurors by whom the said issue was so tried as aforesaid, according to the tenor and effect following:—

[Here followed the libel, which in substance and effect, was a scandalous and malicious libel, concerning the administration of justice in Ireland, and concerning the Judge and jury who had tried the case.]

“to the great scandal and reproach of the administration of justice, in contempt of our Lady the Queen and her laws, to the evil example of all others in the like case offending, and against the peace of our Lady the Queen, her Crown and dignity.”

The information further alleged that, upon and after the trial of Muffeny and Maguire—

“Patrick A. M'Hugh (the defendant), being an evil-disposed person, wickedly and maliciously contriving and intending to bring the administration of justice in this kingdom into contempt, and to scandalize and vilify the jurors by whom the said issue was so tried as aforesaid, and to cause it to be believed that the said jurors had violated their oaths as such, and in determining the said issue had acted partially and improperly, … wickedly and maliciously did print and publish and cause to be printed and published a certain false, wicked, malicious and scandalous libel of and concerning the administration of justice in this kingdom, and of and concerning the jurors by whom the said issues were so tried as aforesaid, according to the tenor and effect following:—

[Here followed a further libel, which in substance and effect, was a scandalous and malicious libel, concerning the administration of justice in Ireland, and concerning the jury who had tried the case. This libel was a report of a speech made by a third person at some public meeting.]

“to the great scandal and reproach of the administration of justice, in contempt of our Lady the Queen and her laws, to the evil example of all others in the like case offending, and against the peace of our Lady the Queen, her Crown and dignity.”

The information further set forth that, upon and after the trial of Muffeny and Maguire-

“Patrick A. M'Hugh, being an evil-disposed person, wickedly and maliciously contriving and intending to bring the administration of justice in this kingdom into contempt, and to scandalize and vilify the jurors by whom the said issue was so tried as aforesaid, and to cause it to be believed that the said jurors had violated their oaths as such, and in determining the said issue had acted partially and improperly, … wickedly and maliciously did print and publish, and cause to be printed and published, a certain false, wicked, malicious and scandalous libel of and concerning the administration of justice in this kingdom, and of and concerning the jurors by whom the said issues were so tried as aforesaid, according to the tenor and effect following:—

[Here followed a further libel which mentioned by name the jurors who tried the case, and in substance and effect was a scandalous and malicious libel, concerning the administration of justice in Ireland, and concerning the jury who had tried the case.]

“meaning thereby that the jurors aforesaid, by whom the said issue had been tried as aforesaid, had found a verdict contrary to law and the facts at the bidding of those acting for the Crown, to the great scandal and reproach of the administration of justice, in contempt of our Lady the Queen and her laws, to the evil example of all others in the like case offending, and against the peace of our Lady the Queen, her Crown and dignity.”

The substance of the libels is more fully given in the judgments of the Court.

The defendant M'Hugh appeared and pleaded—

(2.) As a second plea:

“That the panel of jurors of the county of Sligo prepared for the said Assizes consisted of 258 special jurors, of whom about 180 were members of the Roman Catholic church; that in the empanelling of the jury for the trial of the said Arthur Muffeny and Anthony Maguire, the Crown Solicitor, who instructed the counsel for the prosecution, ordered the Catholic jurors who were called to stand by, and refused to allow them to be sworn until he succeeded in getting a jury composed exclusively of Protestants to try the said traversers, who were both members of the Roman Catholic church; that the twenty-two Catholic jurors who were thus ordered by the Crown Solicitor, without cause assigned or challenge, to stand by, were not permitted to serve on the said jury because they were Roman Catholics, and for no other reason, and that a trial so conducted was calculated to bring the administration of justice into hatred and contempt, and was contrary to law, and so the said Patrick A. M'Hugh saith that the said alleged libels consist of allegations true in substance and in fact, and of fair and reasonable comments thereon.”

(3.) As a third plea:

“And the said Patrick A. M'Hugh further saith that at the time of publishing the said alleged libels it was for the public benefit that the matters therein contained should be published, with a view of procuring a reform of a scandalous procedure which has prevailed in Ireland for many years, which is unwarranted in law, and which has brought the administration of criminal justice in Ireland into hatred and contempt.”

(4.) As a fourth plea:

“And as a further plea the said Patrick A. M'Hugh saith with reference to the said alleged libel of the 10th day of February, 1900, that it is portion of the report of proceedings of a public meeting lawfully convened for a lawful purpose, and open to the public, and was a fair and accurate report, published without malice and for the public benefit.”

(5.) Lastly—

“And so the said Patrick A. M'Hugh saith that he published the said alleged libels as he lawfully might for the causes aforesaid, and this the said Patrick A. M'Hugh is ready to verify.”

The Attorney-General demurred to the defendant's pleas (other than the general issue) and prayed judgment.

Upon joinder in demurrer the following points were set down for argument:—

1. That the said Patrick A. M'Hugh is not entitled by the common law to plead the matters set out in the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs of his plea in answer to the information.

2. That the said Patrick A. M'Hugh is not entitled under the statute 6 & 7 Vict. c. 96, to plead the matters set out in said 2nd and 3rd paragraphs of his plea in answer to the information.

3. That the said Patrick A. M'Hugh is not entitled by the common law to plead the matters set out in the 4th and 5th paragraphs of his plea in answer to the information.

4. That the said Patrick A. M'Hugh is not entitled under the statutes 44 & 45 Vict. c. 60, and 51 & 52 Vict. c. 64, or either of them, or any other statute in that behalf, to plead the matters set out in said 4th and 5th paragraphs of his plea in answer to the information.

The arguments of counsel are fully referred to in the judgment of Lord O'Brien, L.C.J.

Cur. adv. vult.

The Attorney-General (The Right Hon. John Atkinson, Q.C.), and The Solicitor-General (WrightQ.C.), (Fetherstonhaugh, Q.C., and Morphy with them), for the Crown.

Macinerney, Q.C. and D. Kehoe, for the defendant.

Lord O'brien, L.C.J.:—

This case comes before the Court on a demurrer taken to certain pleas filed by the defendant to the information, which has been exhibited by the Attorney-General in his official capacity. The Attorney-General alleges that the pleas are insufficient in point of law, and bad; and the question we have to determine is whether these pleas are good or bad in...