Decisions of the English, Scottish and Irish courts under the Medical Acts 1858 to 1886 and the Dentists Act 1878 : collected for the General Medical Council and arranged with introduction and notes / by Charles J. S. Harper.

  • Harper, Charles John Stewart.
Date:
1912
Catalogue details

Licence: In copyright

Credit: Decisions of the English, Scottish and Irish courts under the Medical Acts 1858 to 1886 and the Dentists Act 1878 : collected for the General Medical Council and arranged with introduction and notes / by Charles J. S. Harper. Source: Wellcome Collection.

Provider: This material has been provided by The University of Leeds Library. The original may be consulted at The University of Leeds Library.

    184/444 page 124
    of the Council, a report of proceedings where the facts had been ascertained, a bona fide true report without any sinister motive, a report of a matter of a public nature, a report of proceedings in which the public are interested, and in respect to which they are entitled to information. New and important bodies were from time to time consti- tuted by the Legislature, such, for instance, as the Londoii County Council and other County Councils throughout the country, bodies to whom the most important duties are en- trusted, duties in which the community at large are interested. Is it to be said that bona fide, honest, and accurate report of the proceedings of these bodies is not privileged, because in the course of the proceedings the character or conduct of individuals is impugned ? Such a result would be most mischievous ; it would impede the free action of these bodies and deprive the public of information to which, in our opinion, they are e]ititled. If the report had simply been a report of the fact that the plain- tiff's name had been erased, we cannot think it would have been contended that the report was not privileged. It is said, because the nature of the offence is stated, the privilege is lost. In our opinion the Council were fully justified in stating the cause of the erasure. If it had not been stated, the plaintiff might have complained that the public were left to infer that he had been convicted of felony or misdemeanour under the earher part of section 29, It might have been said it was unfair to publish part of the proceedings only. Again, if they have published too much, this would not destroy the privilege ; it might be evidence of express malice—but it is admitted there was no such malice. It is also said that the privilege is lost because there has been a publication to the public at large, to a class beyond those mter- ested in the matter ; but this I have disposed of, because, in our opinion, the public at large were interested in these proceedings, and their publication was information to which the public were entitled. There is an American decision—Barrows v. Bell (k), very similar to the present case, where it was held that the publication by a member of the Massachusetts Medical Society of a true account of the proceedings of that society in the expulsion of another member for a cause within its jurisdiction was privi- leged. The decision is instructive, and is entirely in accordance with the views we have expressed. In Whiteley v. Adams (w). Chief Justice Erie said : Judges who have had from time to time to deal with questions as to whether the occasion justified the speaking or the writing of defamatory matter have all felt great difficulty in defining what kind of social or moral duty or 33 L. J. (C. P.) S9.
    digitised image 1
    digitised image 2
    digitised image 3