NM and Others v Smith and Others (Freedom of Expression Institute as Amicus Curiae)

• Jurisdiction: South Africa
• Judge: Langa CJ, Moseneke DCJ, Madala J, Mokgoro J, Nkabinde J, O'Regan J, Sachs J, Skweyiya J, Van Der Westhuizen J and Yacoob J
• Judgment Date: 04 April 2007
• Citation: 2007 (5) SA 250 (CC)
• Docket Number: CCT69/05
• Hearing Date: 09 May 2006
• Counsel: D I Berger SC (with P L Mokoena) for the applicants. J W G Campbell SC (with G Budlender) for the respondents. G J Marcus SC (with A D Stein and N Rajab-Budlender) for the amicus curiae.
• Court: Constitutional Court

Madala J:

Introduction I

[1] In March 2002 a biography of Ms Patricia de Lille entitled Patricia de Lille and authored by Ms Charlene Smith was published by New Africa Books (Pty) Ltd. The names of three women who are HIV- positive were disclosed. They alleged that their names had been published in the book without their prior consent having been obtained. The J three women claimed that their rights to privacy, dignity and psycho

Madala J

logical integrity had been violated. A sequel to that publication was an A action for damages in the Johannesburg High Court. The High Court dismissed with costs the action against Ms Smith and Ms De Lille. [1]

[2] This is an application for leave to appeal against the judgment and order of Schwartzman J in the High Court which was handed down on 13 May 2005 and an amended costs order handed down on 19 May B 2005. The High Court made the following order:

'1.

The plaintiffs claims against the first and second defendants are dismissed with costs.

2.

The third defendant is ordered to pay each of the plaintiffs an amount of R15 000. C

3.

. . . .

3.1

The third defendant is, at its cost, directed to delete, from all copies of the book Patricia de Lille in its possession, the reference at pp 170 and 171 to the plaintiffs names;

3.2

until such deletion is made, the third defendant shall not sell any further copies of the book; D

3.3

to ensure that this part of the court's order has been carried out, the plaintiffs' attorney shall, at any time after 30 June 2005, have the right on 72 hours' notice to inspect all copies of the book in the third defendant's possession.

4.

The third defendant is to pay the plaintiffs' costs.

5.

The court file is to be handed to the Registrar of this Court, who shall keep it in a safe place and who shall E not, without an order from a Judge in Chambers, disclose any part of its content that discloses the name, identity or HIV status of the plaintiffs.' [*1]

[3] The three women did not seek to appeal against that part of the judgment in terms of which the third respondent was found liable to F compensate the applicants for damages suffered by them from the end of April 2002 [2] to the date of judgment. Nor did they seek leave to appeal against that portion of the order that the respondents remove the names of the applicants from all unsold copies of the book.

Parties G

[4] The first to third applicants are NM, SM and LH respectively. They are unemployed, adult women who live in informal settlements in and around Atteridgeville, Pretoria. Their identities are undisclosed as they are HIV-positive and wish to prevent further publication of their identities and HIV status. H

[5] The first respondent is Charlene Smith, a journalist and author of the authorised biography of the second respondent. The second respondent, Patricia de Lille, is a Member of Parliament. The third respondent is the publisher of the book.

[6] In time, the Freedom of Expression Institute (FXI) sought to join the I

Madala J

fray and applied to be admitted as an amicus curiae. This Court granted A the application. We are indebted to counsel for the FXI for well-prepared submissions and argument.

Factual background

[7] In August 1999, Dr Marietta Botes, head of the Immunology Clinic B in the Medical Faculty of the University of Pretoria (the University), recruited volunteers to participate in clinical trials, known as the FTC 302 trials, directed at determining the efficiency of a combination of drugs that could decrease a patient's HIV level. The volunteers, including the applicants, were required to sign a consent form indicating that C they had been informed of the nature, benefits, side-effects and the risks of the clinical trials. The trials were conducted at the Kalafong Hospital, Pretoria, and ended in 2001.

[8] Soon after the start of the clinical trials, concerns were raised by the participants, including the applicants, regarding illnesses and fatalities D on the trials. The gravity of the complaints was noted. On 5 April 2000 the Minister of Health made a statement to Parliament regarding the effects of the drugs and called for a report from the Medicines Control Council, which found that a causal association between the drugs and the deaths was probable. As a consequence the Medicines Control E Council halted any further recruitment of study projects while full reports were being compiled on all the serious adverse effects, including deaths.

[9] Some of the volunteers, in particular the applicants, complained specifically to Father Johan Viljoen, a former priest employed at the F centre attached to the Kalafong Hospital, while at a support group meeting for people with HIV/AIDS. Father Viljoen was concerned about the fact that so many of the volunteers were getting sick as a result of taking the drugs. He approached the second respondent for assistance with a complaint in March/April 2000. The second respondent was a G Member of Parliament known for her stand in relation to the rights of people living with HIV/AIDS. The second respondent flew from Cape Town to meet with the applicants and to see whether a solution could not be found regarding the complaints raised by them.

[10] On 28 March 2000 the second respondent met with members of the H support group. The participants complained that, amongst others, the consent form was never properly explained to them and that Dr Botes was unsympathetic to complaints about the side-effects of the drugs, which she attributed to the disease and not to the drugs themselves.

[11] The second respondent and Father Viljoen investigated the complaints I and took statements from, among others, the three applicants. A meeting with the Ethics Committee took place on 10 April 2000 in a lecture hall at the Pretoria Academic Hospital. Present at the meeting were Prof Falkson (head of the University Ethics Committee), members of the Ethics Committee, Dr Botes, the second respondent, Miss J Vivienne Vermaak (a freelance journalist), other journalists and the

Madala J

South African Broadcasting Corporation. Even though there are disputes A of fact regarding these meetings nothing turns on them.

[12] Another meeting took place on 27 April 2000 in a small house in Atteridgeville, Pretoria, which the second respondent also attended as well as ten members of the support group. Statements were taken by Father Viljoen in English at that meeting. The first and second applicants B admitted signing these statements.

[13] On 3 May 2000 the second respondent sent copies of these statements to the Ethics Committee. On 4 May 2000 copies of the statements were also sent to the South African Human Rights Commission. C As a result of that the Pretoria Academic Hospital decided to set up an internal investigation to look into the complaints. Doctor Freislich was appointed to conduct the investigation. His report was submitted to the Ethics Committee and to Prof Grove (the Registrar of the University) during July 2000. This report, according to the applicants, was sent to the second respondent on 12 October 2000. [3] The second respondent D read the report and was aware of the applicants' complaints included and expressed in the report. This report was allegedly filed with other AIDS-related documents in her AIDS file.

[14] During August 2000 the University requested another external enquiry into the matter to complement the report of Dr Freislich. It E appointed Prof S A Strauss to enquire into the allegations made in the statements. The second respondent was not invited to this enquiry, but the applicants and a number of other trialists were present. At the enquiry the three applicants repudiated their statements made at the meeting in Atteridgeville on 27 April 2000 as incorrect. In his report F delivered on 30 May 2001 Prof Strauss exonerated the University and the medical faculty, stipulating there was no substance in the statements and no evidence of any improper conduct on the part of Dr Botes. Professor Grove also sent the Strauss Report to the second respondent, but without the annexures attached. [4] The second respondent read the G report and filed it with other AIDS-related documents, and did nothing further regarding the matter. A copy of the report was also sent to Ms Vermaak, the journalist present at the meeting held at the University. Martin Welz, also a journalist and editor of Noseweek, obtained a copy.

[15] In the period September to November 2001 Ms Charlene Smith H (the first respondent) was commissioned by the publisher to write a biography of Ms De Lille. The book was to include a chapter on Ms De Lille's work in campaigning for the rights of those living with HIV/AIDS. During the trial, Ms Smith stated that although she had the Strauss

Madala J

Report, she did not have the annexures to it which contained the terms A of the consent forms signed by the applicants. The consent forms did not permit full public disclosure of the identity of the three applicants and the fact that they are living with HIV/AIDS, but only permitted limited disclosure for the purposes of the University's investigation. She stated that there was nothing in the report nor in the covering letter sent to Ms B De Lille that suggested the report was confidential and pointed to the fact that the report had been circulated to two journalists. She confirmed in evidence that she knew that the annexures contained the terms of the consents of the three applicants. She also acknowledged that she knew that media ethics would require her ordinarily not to disclose a person's C HIV/AIDS status without his/her consent. She also stated that she had tried to obtain the annexures to the report from Prof Grove, but that he did not return her calls and...