It’s been a good week for freedom of speech. I wrote an article a few weeks ago about the restaurant Goodfellas taking the Irish News to court for defamation because of a bad review they printed. You can read my article on the matter here:
http://www.john-wright.net/2008/01/25/bad-laws-bad-restaurants-and-bad-coke/
Today the Court of Appeal quashed the original High Court decision in favour of the restaurant and has ordered a retrial. Lord Chief Justice Kerr said: “Although I consider it likely that a properly directed jury would conclude that a sufficient factual substratum existed for the comment… I cannot be certain that this is so and I would therefore order a retrial.”
In other words an intelligent jury with proper directions from the judge really should have found in favour of the Irish News but had been misdirected in the original trial and made a bad decision. But because it isn’t inevitable that such an jury with proper directions would find in favour of the Irish News the case should go to retrial. The ball is now in the restaurant’s court, and they must decide whether or not to pursue the matter. Hopefully these comments from the Lord Chief Justice will put them off and they’ll see sense.
Rather than a lengthy and expensive legal case they would surely be better off improving their inedible food, watery coke and poor service.
Stephen.
You can read the BBC report here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/7286498.stm
For those of you really dedicated you can read the full judgment here:
http://www.courtsni.gov.uk/en-GB/Judicial+Decisions/Judgments/j_j_ker7114final.htm
2 responses so far ↓
1 stan // Mar 12, 2008 at 7:21 pm
The question is: ‘What chance do small businesses have when up against the media?’
I work in the media & have seen it all too often. The little man has no chance against the corporate gangsters that hide behind company desks & policies. But occasionally, there is someone out there who has the courage to stand up and take them on for what they believe in.
I applaud the owner for standing up & doing this. But in reality the ‘corporate gangsters’ will win because of the far reaching effects this would have. It reminds me of films where the mafia would bribe or threaten judges. The newspaper will win but only because of the publicity & far reaching effects. It would be easier for the little man to take a fall rather than the implications on the worlds press!!
This opens up another question: What about the judge who ‘misdirected’ the jury in the 1st hearing?
Does he/she get to continue in their profession without a dressing down or retraining? Why can’t judges get it right 1st time? If they dont and an appeal proves they were wrong, what happens? Are they still allowed to continue doing their job badly?
I mean its not an office job where they’ve maybe broken the photocopier. These are the very people who lock criminals and sometimes innocent people up!! They need to get it right and also be made aware when they do get it wrong as the consequences could be very severe!
2 Stephen // Mar 13, 2008 at 1:38 pm
Hi Stan:
Thanks for responding. I said some things to Pauley No Nose in the comments section of my original article on this and I think they apply also to what you say here. I take it you and pauley know each other?
Anyhow, are you referring to Caroline Workman and the Irish News as “corporate gangsters?” Just what exactly did they do to deserve that label? Workman wrote an honest review and the Irish News published it - it’s no different from what every newspaper in the western world does.
You say you applaud Goodfellas for “standing up.” Just what did they stand up for? To my mind they stood up to protect themselves from a bad review even if it was deserved. They want the right to provide a bad service without anyone being able to call them on it. So, I see it the other way around, and I think they deserve every ounce of bad publicity this has got them because they have made a fundamental attack on one of the most important freedoms in the history of human kind. The Irish News, so far, has won, and rightly so. If you think there is a legal or moral basis for a different opinion then please say so. As someone who claims to be in the media I’m surprised that you agree with the case for Goodfellas.
Oddly you remark: “It reminds me of films where the mafia would bribe or threaten judges.” Just how does this case remind of that exactly? Are you suggesting the case was corrupt or the judges had been bribed? Talk about libel!
“It would be easier for the little man to take a fall rather than the implications on the worlds press!!”
You’re right. It is better that this man lost his legal case if it means protecting fundamental freedoms. What other result would have been better in your opinion?
S.
Leave a Comment