R vs. FRIMPONG [1959]DLHC2044

Date	1959-08-31
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1959]DLHC2044

ADUMUA-BOSSMAN J.

BATTCOCK (WITH HIM BOISON) FOR THE CROWN.

DA ROCHA (WITH HIM DE GRAFT JOHNSON) FOR ACCUSED

[1959]DLHC2044
																																						<div class="restriction-wrapper">
														<div class="container-lg">
															<div class="row">
																<div class="col-md-12 restricted-content">
																	<div class="restricted-content-img-wrapper">
																		<div class="lock-icon bounce-7">
																			<img class=""
																				src="https://www.dennislawgh.com/dl-assets/dl-images/lock-content.png"
																				alt="Subscription based content">
																		</div>
																	</div>
																	 
																		<a href="https://www.dennislawgh.com/login"
																		class="btn btn-primary btn-lg"
																		style="font-family: 'open sans'; text-transform: capitalize; border-radius: 8px"> 
																		Login to Read Full Case </a>
																	 
																	
																</div>
															</div>
														</div>
													</div>
													<main id="main" class="content" style="min-height: 60rem" ><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:
115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;mso-fareast-font-family:Times;
mso-bidi-font-family:Times;color:#548DD4;mso-themecolor:text2;mso-themetint:
153">R <o:p></o:p><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:
115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;mso-fareast-font-family:Times;
mso-bidi-font-family:Times;color:#548DD4;mso-themecolor:text2;mso-themetint:
153">vs. <o:p></o:p><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:
115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;mso-fareast-font-family:Times;
mso-bidi-font-family:Times;color:#548DD4;mso-themecolor:text2;mso-themetint:
153">FRIMPONG<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;[HIGH COURT, CAPE COAST]<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;[1959] GLR 287<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

DATE:
31ST AUGUST, 1959.<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 0in 0in">

BATTCOCK
(WITH HIM BOISON) FOR THE CROWN.<o:p></o:p>

DA ROCHA
(WITH HIM DE GRAFT JOHNSON) FOR ACCUSED.<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:
<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 0in 0in">

ADUMUA-BOSSMAN J.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF ADUMUA-BOSSMAN J.<o:p></o:p>(His
lordship stated the history of the matter, and continued:—)<o:p></o:p>The
absence of any evidence of the delivery of the defamatory air-letter to, or of
its receipt by, the addressee, and the rather strong suspicion raised by the
circumstantial evidence that it had somehow got into the hands of some
unauthorised person in London, and by the latter posted back to the complainant
in Accra, led me to ask for arguments whether there was sufficient evidence
establishing a prima facie case of publication.<o:p></o:p>Regard
must be had, inter alia, to the cases of:<o:p></o:p>(1) Sharp
v. Skues ((1909) 25 T.L.R. 336);<o:p></o:p>(2) Huth
v. Huth ([1915] 3 K.B. 32) and<o:p></o:p>(3)
Powell v. Gelston ([1916] 2 K.B. 615).<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Those three
cases (the second, Huth v. Huth, being a decision of the English Court of
Appeal) establish the proposition that the interception by an unauthorised
third party of a letter containing matter defamatory of the addressee, does not
constitute publication to that unauthorised third party, or to any other person
to whom that unauthorised third party may publish the letter. As was observed
by Lord Reading C.J. in Huth (supra) at p. 38:—<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;
margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:
31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">“It would
be impossible successfully to contend . . . that if a person, in breach of his
duty, were to open a letter, and there was no reason to expect that he would
commit that breach of duty, the fact that he had opened it and read it would
amount to publication by the person who sent it.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Since the
adjournment, however, I have looked into the matter further and have examined
the authorities. In the result I have satisfied myself that the arguments which
I invited are no longer necessary, and that the evidence available does
disclose a prima facie case of publication. The principle of the three cases
above referred to is explained in paragraph 62 of Vol. 24 of the Simonds
edition of Halsbury, at p.32, as follows:-<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;
margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:
31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">“If a
letter containing a libel intended for and addressed to the person libelled is
wrongfully opened by a third party, there is no publication.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>