The jury might then have been asked to fit that allegation into its appropriate place in the scale of defamatory remarks to which the plaintiff might have been subjected. A helpful guide for a jury in a case such as this would have been to ask them to reduce to actuality the allegation complained of, namely, that in an excess of triumphalism at his leader's success the plaintiff attempted to tweak the beard of an unfriendly journalist. MONICA LEECH HOW TOThe fact remains, however, that the jury were not given any real help as to how to assess compensatory damages in this case. MONICA LEECH TRIALIndeed it is right to point out that no criticism was made at the trial by either side of any part of the judge's address to the jury. Also, quite properly, he told the jury that they should not allow their assessment of damages to be affected by the fact that the plaintiff had agreed to donate the damages to charity. The judge, quite properly, in this case told the jury to ignore all matters in the article save the allegation of an assault. Among the relevant considerations proper to be taken into account are the nature of the libel, the standing of the plaintiff, the extent of the publication, the conduct of the defendant at all stages of the case, and any other matter which bears on the extent of the damages. The jury have to be told that they must make their assessment entirely on the facts as found by them, and they must be given such directions on the law as will enable them to reach a proper assessment on the basis of those facts. “In a case such as this in which there is no question of punitive, exemplary or aggravated damages, it is the duty of the judge to direct the jury that the damages must be confined to such sum of money as will fairly and reasonably compensate the plaintiff for his injured feelings and for any diminution in his standing among right-thinking people as a result of the words complained of. in that case (at page 23) has subsequently found approval in a number of other decisions and for that reason it would be helpful to refer to the relevant passage in full. The first of those is the Supreme Court decision in the case of Barrett v. The parties in their respective submissions have both referred to a number of the same authorities in which the difficult question as to the assessment of damages in defamation actions has been considered. However, it is important to point out that the fundamental task of this Court on an appeal from the verdict of a jury on the basis that the damages awarded were excessive, remains the same. Rather the complaint made is that the award of damages made herein is so disproportionately high that it ought to be set aside. It is not suggested that there was any error on the part of the trial judge in his charge to the jury on the question of damages. The position was different when these proceedings came to trial before the High Court. The assessment of damages was and remains a matter entirely for the jury but by virtue of the provisions of the 2009 Act it is now possible for the trial judge to give more detailed directions to a jury as to the assessment of damages. Prior to the 2009 Act, the trial judge was limited as to the directions that could be given to a jury on the subject of the quantum of damages. This is a case which pre-dates the enactment of the Defamation Act 2009 which introduced new provisions, inter alia, in relation to damages particularly, in relation to the directions to be given to a jury by the trial judge in respect of a trial in the High Court and the matters to which regard shall be had in assessing damages.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |