Facts
In Lewis v. Daily Telegraph Ltd [1964] AC 234, articles were published in the Daily Telegraph and Daily Mail under the headlines:
“Enquiry on Firm by City Police” and “Fraud Squad Probe Firm,”
which stated that the police were inquiring into the affairs of a company of which the plaintiff, Lewis, was the chairman. Lewis alleged in his statement of claim that the words meant and were understood to mean that he had been guilty of, or was suspected by the police of being guilty of, fraud or dishonesty. He argued that these inferences or innuendoes were implied by the words used. The defendant denied that the words were capable of carrying such a meaning and requested that the jury be directed accordingly.
Issue
The key issue was the true meaning of the words used in the articles for the purpose of the defamation suit. Specifically, whether the words implied guilt of fraud or merely suspicion.
Holding
The House of Lords ruled that it was for the trial judge to determine whether the words were capable of imputing guilt of fraud, as distinct from merely suggesting suspicion. The judge’s failure to do so was a misdirection, and as such, a new trial was ordered. The words in question were not capable of implying guilt of fraud in their ordinary meaning.
The jury should have been directed accordingly.
Lord Devlin noted:
“The natural and ordinary meaning of words for the purposes of defamation is not their natural and ordinary meaning for other purposes of the law. There must be added to the implications which a court is prepared to make as a matter of construction all such insinuations and innuendoes as could reasonably be read into them by the ordinary man” (at AC 236).
