R v Hanna

• Jurisdiction: Jamaica
• Judge: Duffus, J.
• Judgment Date: 15 December 1959
• Neutral Citation: JM 1959 CA 6
• Court: Court of Appeal (Jamaica)
• Date: 15 December 1959

Court of Appeal

MacGregor, C.J.; Small, J.A.; Duffus, J.A.

R.

and

Hanna

Appearances:

Parkinson for the appellant.

Douglas for the Crown.

Criminal law - Making false statement — Election — Making false statements of fact in relation to the personal conduct of a candidate — The Representation of the People Law, Cap.342, s.105.(c).

Duffus, J.

1 The appellant was convicted by the resident magistrate, Kingston, of making a false statement of fact on July 17th, 1959, in relation to the personal conduct of Florizel Augustus Glasspole, a candidate during an election for the House of Representatives for the purpose of affecting the return of the said Florizel Augustus Glasspole, contrary to s.105 (c) of the Representation of the People Law, Cap.342 [J.]. The statement was: “When you hear Mr. Glasspole talking a lot of bulls over the radio why don't you write him a letter and question him as residents of this constituency what happen to the $8,000 that was entrusted to him by peoples in the United States for the people in Jamaica. Ask him what happen to that $8,000 and why it never reach to its destination, and see if as an intelligent people you are satisfied with his reply.” This statement was uttered by the appellant while addressing a public political meeting in support of his own candidature, and his speech was recorded by a tape recording machine operated by the police. At the trial the appellant swore that the recording was substantially accurate but that there may have been two or three omissions. In the grounds of appeal it was suggested that material words could have been left out, but this ground was not argued before us.

2 At the trial evidence was given by the honourable Florizel Augustus Glasspole, who was returned as the successful candidate for the constituency, to the effect that the statement made by the appellant concerning him was false in several material particulars. Glasspole stated that in 1949 he visited the United States of America on a speaking mission on behalf of the Peoples National Party of which he was a member, and that he collected from donors in the U.S.A. the sum of $2,100 for this party. On his return to Jamaica the money was left in his coat pocket from which it was stolen by a man working at a dry cleaning establishment to which his coat had been sent. On discovering the loss of the money he made a report to the police who recovered the full amount, intact. The person who stole the money was arrested, tried and convicted by the resident magistrate, Kingston. The Crown tendered in evidence a certified copy of the indictment and conviction. Glasspole further stated that as soon as the money was returned to him by the police he handed it over to the Peoples National Party. He emphatically denied that he had ever been entrusted with $8,000 by people in the United States for the people in Jamaica and swore that any statement to this effect was false. The amount he had received was $2,100 and it was donated to “the people in Jamaica”, but was given to him for his political party. The statement that the money had never reached its destination, also was completely false.

3 At the hearing of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appeal could be resolved by answering two broad questions:

• (1).Was there a false statement of fact? And

• (2).If so, was it a statement of fact in relation to the personal character or conduct of a candidate, or was it only a criticism of his conduct as a public man or as a politician?

4 He approached the first question by posing the following sub-questions:

• (i).Did the words charged formulate a statement or did they formulate a question?

• (ii).If the words formulated a statement, is it a statement merely by implication?

• (iii).Is a statement by implication within the ambit of the law. Having regard to the fact that this was an entirely different case to a case of defamation, and having regard to the strict rules of construction applicable to a penal statute?

• (iv).If there was a statement can it be said to be a statement of fact and not a statement of opinion?

• (v).If it can be said to be a statement of fact was it false or was it substantially true?

5 And he approached the second question by posing the following:

• (i).If there was a false statement of fact was it a mere argumentative statement of the conduct of a public man, although in respect of his private life?

• (ii).Having regard to the clear rules of construction of a penal statute, can it be said that the words charged come within the mischief of the statute?

6 As these questions indicate, a careful analysis of the statement attributed to the appellant, and...