Meaning Flashcards
What is the ‘meaning’
The meaning of the words are like the ‘sting’ of the publication. It is also sometimes called the ‘imputation’ of the words. (what did the words communicate to the audience)
Who determines whether the words have the pleaded meaning?
The fact finder (either the judge or the jury) decide on whether the words bear the pleaded meaning
What are the three topics within ‘meaning’?
i. Tiers of meaning
ii. Single meaning rule
iii. Innuendo
What is the natural ordinary meaning of the words?
The meaning which the ordinary reader would infer - including that which they would do so by ‘reading between the lines’ (Charleston 👩❤️💋👨)
Craig v Slater (2020) 💣NZCA
Facts: Craig was the leader of the conservative party – Slater was the owner of a controversial political blog and published rumours about Craig
- One other victim of sexual harassment (who wasn’t Craig’s secretary) “there is at least one other victim out there with similar circumstances”
- “Craig is just a ticking timebomb”
- “Craig is a danger to women”
etc
He also posed 20 different questions implying dishonesty eg
“Are you confident you have been honest in your filing of all Electoral Returns in accordance with the Act”
What were the three tiers of meaning recognised by the Court of Appeal in Craig v Slater 💣 if a publication POSES A QUESTION?
1) That the claimant is guilty of misconduct
2) That there are reasonable grounds to suspect that the claimant is guilty of the misconduct
3) That the claimant is being investigated or there are grounds to investigate in respect of misconduct
What qualifications to the tiers of meaning did the Court of Appeal in Craig v Slater 💣 add?
- Notes that they are not terms a reasonable reader is likely to use
- The tiers can shade into each other, and each ‘tier’ can actually capture different kinds of situations within it
- Which ‘tier’ a statement fits into depends on the context
What was the result of Craig v Slater 💣 in the Court of appeal - in relation to the questions
Context supports the first/second tier of meaning that Craig was either guilty or there were reasonable grounds for believing he was
Lewis v Daily telegraph Ltd (1964) 🕵UK CA
Facts: The defendant published an article which said that officers of the City of London Fraud Squad were enquiring into the affair of the plaintiff’s companies. It named Mr Lewis as a chairman of the company
What were the two tiers of meaning in Lewis v Daily telegraph Ltd (1964) 🕵?
Two different tiers of meaning
a) the affairs of the plaintiff were conducted fraudulently or dishonestly
b) the police suspect that their affairs were so conducted
In Lewis v Daily telegraph Ltd (1964) 🕵 what meaning did the words hold?
Lord Devlin held that the words were capable of the latter (definition b = suspect of guilt) and not the former (definition a = guilty)
“But even if a statement that a person is being investigated by the police implies suspicion it does not follow that it implies guilt. It might imply that the police are suspicious but you can’t jump all the way from that to a conclusion that he is also guilty. “For that, two fences have to be taken instead of one.”
What are the two aspects to the single meaning rule?
a) all readers are assumed to have understood the words in question in the same way
AND
b) that all readers will be assumed to have the same response regarding whether the statement lowers the plaintiff in their eyes or not.
As a part of the single meaning rule can we break society up into different groups?
NO, the plaintiff NEEDS to show that the community as a whole would think less of the claimant as a result of the publication
Eg. If someone was defamed to be anti-vegetarian the whole of society wouldn’t think them lowered
What is an argument within the single meaning rule?
Eg. A newspaper article wrongly say that X is a medical practitioner who carries abortions when in fact X is an anti-abortion campaigner
The general public might think less of you because you are going against your core ideas of being anti-abortion – showing that you are unprincipled, dishonest etc
What is the innuendo rule?
The innuendo rule is an exception to the single meaning rule - and arises where words appear perfectly normal to the ordinary reader UNLESS someone has “inside information” (eg knowledge of extraneous facts)
YOU MUST PLEAD INNUENDO FROM THE START OF THE CASE
