Day 177 - 26 Oct 95 - Page 25

     
     1             have taken a literate reader of that newspaper
     2             more than 60 seconds to read before passing on
     3             to some other, and perhaps more interesting,
     4             item.  Any unfavourable inference about the
     5             plaintiffs' characters or conduct which he might
     6             have drawn from what he read would have been one
     7             of first impression.'"
     8
     9        My Lord we believe that to be a precise statement of the
    10        task which the court must perform on occasions such as
    11        this, to try, so far as is humanly possible, to put itself
    12        in the shoes of the casual once-over reader who in this
    13        case gets a copy of this in the street or through the post,
    14        or as the case may be.
    15
    16   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Could it not be said that this leaflet is in
    17        a slightly different category:  on the one hand, you have
    18        the television programmes where you only get one
    19        opportunity to pick it up, so you get Skuse v. Granada TV
    20        and Gillett; and then here in Slim v. Daily Telegraph you
         have two short letters.  I assume, though I did not check
    22        the more detailed fax in the report, that each short letter
    23        appeared in a separate edition of the newspaper; but, even
    24        if they did not, they would not take very long to read, and
    25        then you move on through other news topics.  Whereas, if
    26        anyone read this leaflet beyond just the headlines -- and
    27        I cannot just look at the headlines in the light of
    28        Charleston v. News Group Newspapers -- might not an
    29        ordinary reasonable reader go back over it to check what it
    30        actually said?
    31
    32   MR. RAMPTON:  Might do; and, as your Lordship will see, I think,
    33        when we get to Morgan v. Odhams Press Limited, Lord Reid
    34        thought that some people might read it twice, or the
    35        reasonable reader might read it twice.  One of the other
    36        judges -- I think it was Lord Morris or it might have been
    37        Lord Pearson -- said, no, not a bit of it, he would read it
    38        once and that would be that.  So your Lordship has a
    39        difficult choice.
    40
    MR. JUSTICE BELL: None of the cases are a publication just like
    42        this one.  I have to make up my own mind about that.
    43
    44   MR. RAMPTON:  Exactly.
    45
    46   MR. JUSTICE BELL: I do not mind saying that I thought of this
    47        distinction and then I got to Morgan v. Odhams Press
    48        Limited and saw what they said there.  But there we are.
    49
    50   MR. RAMPTON:  Since this is, in effect, what I would have said 
    51        in closing, and since twelve of your Lordship's thirteen 
    52        parts are a notional jury, it is not inconceivable that 
    53        from time to time I shall address your Lordship as though
    54        you were a jury.  I apologise for that in advance, but it
    55        is inevitable.
    56
    57   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  There is no need to.  It may be a
    58        compliment.
    59
    60   MR. RAMPTON:  I do not know.  I, personally, have considerable