Disclaimer: This work was produced by one of our expert legal writers, as a learning aid to help law students with their studies.

Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not reflect the views of LawTeacher.net. Any information contained in this case summary does not constitute legal advice and should be treated as educational content only.

Penfold v Westcote

297 words (1 pages) Case Summary

15th Aug 2019 Case Summary Reference this In-house law team

Jurisdiction / Tag(s): Australian Law

Penfold v Westcote [1806] 2 B&P (NR) 335

Libel; imputation of crime; words capable of defamation

(270 words)

Facts

The defendant said the following about the claimant: “Why don’t you come out you blackguard rascal, scoundral, Penfold, you are a thief”. The trial judge directed the jury that it was for the defendant to prove that by using the word ‘thief’ he did not imply the need to charge the claimant with a felony. The jury found in favour of the claimant.

Issues

The defendant appealed to have the verdict set aside. He argued that the words and expressions surrounding the word ‘thief’ proved that the he did not intend to impute felony – he only used the word in the heat of the moment. He further claims that no evidence was put forward, which would have shown that anyone else understood the word ‘thief’ to imply the need to charge the claimant with a crime.

Decision/Outcome

Unless the jury found that the defendant intended to imply that the claimant was to be charged with theft, it should not have found in favour of the claimant. The jury should consider the manner in which the words used were pronounced and also other circumstances, which could explain the meaning of the word. If the jury found that the word ‘thief’ was merely used as general abuse, they should have dismissed the claimant’s case. All in all, however, if someone calls another a ‘thief’ together with other names of general abuse (that would not normally impute crime), then – in the absence of any evidence to support any other meaning of the word ‘thief’ – the jury can find for the claimant as the word ‘thief’ is actionable in itself as imputing theft.

Cite This Work

To export a reference to this article please select a referencing stye below:

Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.

Related Services

View all

Related Content

Jurisdictions / Tags

Content relating to: "Australian Law"

This selection of academic papers covers the legal system of Australia and contains, essays, dissertations and case summaries which may be of interest to Australian law students or those studying Australian laws from outside Australia.

Related Articles