Suid-Afrikaanse Uitsaaikorporasie v O'Malley

• Jurisdiction: South Africa
• Judge: Rumpff HR, Jansen AR, De Villiers AR, Miller AR en Joubert Wn AR
• Judgment Date: 05 May 1977
• Citation: 1977 (3) SA 394 (A)
• Hearing Date: 07 March 1977
• Court: Appellate Division

Rumpff, H.R.:

In hierdie saak kom appellant in hoër beroep teen 'n

Rumpff HR

bevel van 'n Hof in die Witwatersrandse Plaaslike Afdeling waarvolgens appellant 'n bedrag van R2 000 aan respondent as skadevergoeding weens laster moet betaal. 'n Deel van die A uitspraak van die Hof a quo verskyn in O'Malley v South African Broadcasting Corporation, 1976 (3) SA 125 (W). Respondent is die redakteur van The Daily News, 'n dagblad wat in Natal gedruk en uitgegee word. Appellant is geskep deur Wet 22 van 1936 en sy adres word aangegee as Broadcast House, Johannesburg. In sy besonderhede van eis het respondent (eiser) in para. 4 (a) beweer dat appellant (verweerder) op 26 B September 1976 op verskillende tye van die oggend nuusberigte uitgesaai het, o.a. oor die Engelse diens, wat oor die hele Republiek en elders gehoor is. In die nuusberigte is o.a. die volgende berig:

"The Minister of Justice, Mr. Kruger, has announced in Cape Town that the editor of the Durban afternoon newspaper, The Daily News, Mr. John O'Malley, has been arrested in terms of the Riotous Assemblies Act. Our Durban news office reports that 13 other people were arrested earlier yesterday evening after C several hundred non-whites, and a number of white students, attended an illegal meeting organised by the South African Students' Organisation and the Black Peoples' Convention. The Chief of the Security Police, Brigadier Geldenhuys, revealed last night that six alleged leaders of the two movements were in an office in Durban. One of the six - he said - was a banned person. The Chief of the Security Police in the Port Natal Division, Colonel Steenkamp, said investigations were still being made and further arrests were possible."

D Hierdie berig is in die agtuurnuus oor die Engelse diens gevolg deur die volgende:

"A message just received says that Mr. O'Malley, who was released on R50 bail, will appear in court this morning."

Die besonderhede van eis beweer in para. 4 (c) die volgende:

"By the aforesaid reports the defendant meant and was E understood to mean that the plaintiff had attended an unlawful gathering and had been arrested on a charge of having done so."

En in para. 5:

"The aforesaid news reports were defamatory of the plaintiff and were published by the defendant with the intent to injure him and by reason thereof the plaintiff F has sustained damages in the sum of R10 000."

In appellant se pleit is erken dat die nuusberig wat in die besonderhede van eis verskyn oor die radio gelees is, maar dan word die volgende verwere opgewerp:

"3 (b)

Die verwerder ontken dat die nuusberigte kon G beteken of verstaan kon word om te beteken dat die eiser 'n onwettige vergadering bygewoon het, of dat hy op grond daarvan in hegtenis geneem is.

(c)

Die verweerder sê dat die voormelde nuusberig in elke opsig waar en korrek is en gebaseer is op inligting wat ontvang is van die bronne gemeld in die voormelde nuusberigte.

(d)

H Sodanige bronne is uiters betroubaar en het die verweerder voormelde nussberigte sonder enige animus injuriandi teenoor die eiser, en in die belang van die algemene publiek van die Republiek van Suid-Afrika sodanige nuusberigte die eter ingestuur."

Uit getuienis wat namens respondent voorgelê is, blyk dit dat toe die betrokke nuusberig gelees is, appellant se personeel in besit was van o,a. 'n verslag van die South African Press Association (kortweg SAPA

Rumpff HR

genoem) wat om 22.51 op 25 September aan appellant in Johannesburg gestuur is. Hierdie verslag lui soos volg:

"MR. J. M. W. +PAT+ O'MALLEY, EDITOR OF THE DAILY NEWS IN DURBAN, WS ARRESTED BY POLICE AT HIS CURRIE ROAD HOME TONIGHT.

HIS ARREST WS CONFIRMED IN CAPE TOWN LATER BY THE MINISTER OF JUSTICE, MR JIMMY KRUGER, WHO SD THAT +THE OTHER ARGUS GROUP EDITORS CASES+ WOULD BE CONSIDERED TOMORROW.

IT IS UNDERSTOOD THAT MR. O'MALLEY'S WS DETAINED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE RIOTOUS ASSEMBLIES ACT WHICH STATES, INTER ALIA, THAT IT IS AN OFFENCE TO +ADVERTISE+ A MEETING BANNED B UNDER THE ACT."

Ook het 'n ander verslag van SAPA, wat op 1.13 op 26 September deur appellant in Johannesburg ontvang is, die volgende omtrent respondent bevat:

"MR. J. M. W. O'MALLEY, EDITOR OF THE DAILY NEWS IN DURBAN, WS ARRESTED WHILE ATTENDING A WINE-TASTING CONTEST ORGANISED BY HIS NEWSPAPER IN A BEACHFRONT HOTEL TONIGHT.

HE WAS ARRESTED BY COLONEL MARCUS VAN DER MERWE, ACTING CID OFFICER FOR THE PORT NATAL POLICE DIVISION, UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE RIOTOUS ASSEMBLIES ACT WHICH STATES, INTER ALIA, THAT IT IS AN OFFENCE TO +ADVERTISE+ A MEETING BANNED UNDER THE ACT.

D THE MINISTER OF JUSTICE, MR. JIMMY KRUGER, CONFIRMING THE ARREST TONIGHT, SD THAT IT AROSE OUT OF A REPORT ON THE FRONT PAGE TO TODAYS DAILY NEWS WHICH STATED THAT THE BANNING ORDER ON A PRO-FRELIMO RALLY ORGANISED BY SASO AND BPC IN DURBAN WAS +TO BE DEFIED+ TONIGHT.

MR. KRUGER ADDED: +THIS APPEARED TO AMOUNT TO A TRANSGRESSION E OF THE RIOTOUS ASSEMBLIES ACT+."

Drie persone het namens respondent getuienis afgelê en gesê dat hulle die betrokke berig gehoor het. Een was Dawid Edward James, nuusredakteur van die Daily News. Hy het gesê dat respondent een van die senior koerantredakteurs in die land is en in die koerantwêreld 'n hoë reputasie geniet. Hy het 'n Afrikaanse weergawe van die nuusberig gehoor oor Radio Port Natal, wat om 6.30 'n berig uitgesaai het wat wesenlik F dieselfde as dié hierbo genoem, behalwe dat daarin spesifiek genoem is dat die onwettige vergadering by Curries Fountain in Durban gehou is.

James het gesê dat hy dadelik gedink het dat respondent by Curries Fountain was. 'n Sekere Milne van Johannesburg, buitelandse redakteur van die Argusgroepkoerante, waartoe die G Daily News behoort, en 'n argitek, Reeves, van Durban, het verklaar dat hulle na aanhoor van die berig gemeen het dat respondent by die verbode vergadering was. Uit die getuienis wat namens respondent gelei is, kan afgelei word dat koerante wat later op 26 September verskyn het die juiste weergawe bevat het omtrent respondent se arrestasie.

Geen getuienis is namens appellant voorgelê nie. In die H besonderhede van eis beweer respondent uitdruklik dat appellant

"meant and was understood to mean that the plaintiff had attended an unlawful meeting and had been arrested on a charge of having done so"

en in sy pleit beweer appellant uitdruklik dat hy die nuusberigte

"sonder enige animus injuriandi teenoor die respondent en in die belang van die algemene publiek van die Republiek van Suid-Afrika"

uitgesaai het. Dit moet aanvaar word dat in ons reg die publikasie van

Rumpff HR

lasterlike woorde 'n vermoede laat ontstaan dat die woorde opsetlik gepubliseer is en dat die publikasie onregmatig is. Weens die oorname van Engelse terminologie in ons lasterreg het A die twee noodsaaklike elemente van laster as delik, nl. onregmatigheid en skuld, nie altyd duidelik na vore gekom nie en het daar heelwat vertroebeling ontstaan. Voordat die woord "privilege" sy verskyning in die Engelse reg gemaak het, is in daardie reg regmatigheid skynbaar as verweer aanvaar. In sy werk, On Actionable Defamation, 2de uitg., verduidelik Spencer Bower op bl. 318 dat die woord "privilege", met enkele B uitsonderings, in die eerste helfte van die 19de eeu sy verskyning in die lasterreg gemaak het en ter stawing van sy opvatting dat die woord "privilege" vervang behoort te word deur "immunity" verklaar hy op bl. 312 - 313 die volgende:

"The common element in the various conditions under which a party defaming becomes entitled to assert the legal right or excuse above referred to cannot be better stated than in the language of BLACKBURN, J., at p. 780 of Campbell v. C Spottiswoode, (1863) 3 B. & S. 769:

'the meaning of the word is that a person stands in such a relation to the facts of the case that he is justified in saying or writing what would be slanderous or libellous in any one else'

(to which, it is submitted, there ought to be added, in order to make the definition completely sound - 'or in himself, but for his standing in such relation'). In other words, any member of the public, given the existence of the facts and his D 'relation' thereto, is entitled to speak and write freely, that which, in the absence of those facts and that relation, no member of the public would be allowed to speak or write, - 'not Lancelot, nor another.' When the occasion arises, the right arises; when the occasion is past, - when the facts or 'relation' cease to exist, - the right disappears.

Nothing less resembling, or more directly opposed to, what is connoted by the word 'privilege', could well be imagined. If the dictionary were searched through, one could scarcely select an expression more inapt to indicate the root-idea (as stated E in the above passage) of that to which it is usually applied, or more calculated to suggest the very contrary."

Op bl. 325 verwys hy na 'n aantal beslissings vanaf 1796 tot 1868 as voorbeelde waarin die term "lawful" gebruik word wanneer daar geen aanspreeklikheid weens regmatigheid sou wees F nie en hy verwys ook na 'n aantal beslissings vanaf 1796 tot 1873 waarin die woord 'justified" of "justification" gebruik is om vorms van verweer gebaseer op regmatigheid aan te dui, en nie slegs die beperkte vorm van "justification" nie.

Ook het die invoer van die woorde "malice" en "express malice" uit die Engelse reg wat skuld betref, dikwels die juiste beginsel aangaande opset in ons reg versluier. In Whittaker and G Morant v Roos and Bateman, 1912 AD 92, waarin 'n opsetlike onregmatige daad ter sprake was en na die daad verwys is as "a wrongful and intentional interference with those absolute natural rights relating to personality", het INNES, A.R., op bl. 131 die beginsel wat behoort te geld duidelik gestel:

"It is not necessary in order to find that there was an animus H injuriandi to prove any ill-will or spite on the part of...