Legal Writing Guide - The University of Auckland Library

) The reasonable person reading the publication is one of ordinary intelligence, general knowledgeand experience of worldly affairs.c) The courts are not concerned with the literal meaning of the words or the meaning that might beextracted on close analysis by a lawyer or academic linguist.d) The meaning necessarily includes inferences as the reasonable person can read between thelines.e) The courts will reject meanings that are the product of some strained or forced interpretation.f) The words complained of must be read in context.The focus is therefore on the ordinary reasonable reader 5 reading the words in context. In consideringthe words in context all of the surrounding circumstances must be considered. The words complained ofclearly convey a defamatory sense to the ordinary person. They suggest that Elaine is an unchasteperson who indulges in indiscriminate amatory ventures. Elaine’s reputation is likely to be lowered in theeyes of “right-thinking people generally”.However, would a right-thinking person actually think less of Elaine, given the nature of the medium bywhich the words are expressed? Although, on the one hand, it might be argued that a right-thinkingperson is unlikely to give credence to graffiti in public toilets, the better view is that a right-thinkingperson would think less of someone whose name and address could be found scribbled on the walls ofa public toilet. Indeed, the very context in which the words are found would probably add to the hurt toElaine’s reputation, and add to damages.3 Pete’s Pub’s liability as a publisherPublication is the making known of defamatory matter to someone other than the person defamed. 6 Thewords on the toilet wall were not written by the owner or an employee of Pete’s Pub, but this does notpreclude Pete’s Pub from being held liable. In Webb v Bloch 7 the Court said: “All who are in any degreeaccessory to the publication of a libel, and by any means whatever conduce to the publication, are to beconsidered as principals in the act of publication… .”Here, the toilet walls are the means by which the defamatory words are communicated to thosemembers of the public who use the toilets, in the same way that a newspaper is the means by which adefendant’s words can be communicated to the public.Positive misconduct is not necessary as a failure to act can result in liability. So, for example, posterspasted on the walls of bus shelters by unknown persons can constitute a publication by thoseresponsible for the shelters. 8Because Pete’s Pub is responsible for the maintenance of the walls and has been expressly informed ofthe offending publication it is prima facie liable as the publisher.___________________1 Collerton v Maclean [1962] NZLR 1045 (HC).2 At 1046.3 New Zealand Magazines Ltd v Hadlee (No 2) [2005] NZAR 621.4 At 625.5 Who is “not avid for scandal” (Lewis v Daily Telegraph Ltd [1964] AC 234 (HL) at 260 and 268) and is “not undulysuspicious” (Morgan v Odhams Press Ltd [1971] 1 WLR 1239 (HL) at 1261.6 Pullman v Hill [1891] 1 QB 524 (CA).7 Webb v Bloch (1928) 41 CLR 331.8 Urbanchich v Drummoyne Municipal Council [1991] Aust Torts R 69 (NSWSC) at 190.(c)The conclusionAlways end your essay with a conclusion that directly addresses the question you were asked toanswer. The conclusion must draw together and summarize the essential results of your arguments andanalysis in the body of your essay. The conclusion therefore provides the ultimate answer to thequestion and resolution of the problem. It should neither include a paraphrase of your introduction, norintroduce wholly new material.7