Hong Kong defamation ruling against Ming Pao overturned
PUBLISHED : Wednesday, 18 November, 2015, 12:01am
UPDATED : Wednesday, 18 November, 2015, 12:01am
Julie Chu
[email protected]
Ming Pao won the defamation case on appeal in the High Court. Photo: Sam Tsang
A Chinese-language newspaper was cleared of defaming the vice-chairman of the Hong Kong Football Association in an editorial after the Court of Appeal ruled the paper made its comments in the public interest.
The Court of Appeal yesterday overturned a jury's verdict that found that Ming Pao had defamed Pui Kwan-kay by alleging that he was incapable of managing the association.
Appeal Court Vice-President Mr Justice Johnson Lam Man-hon wrote: "Though the article could be regarded as aggressive or even provocative, we are of the firm view that Ming Pao has established a defence of public interest in the present case and the choice of wording and presentation of material was within [the bounds of] editorial judgment."
Lam said that judges, while dealing with this sort of libel case, not only had to pay attention to assessment of the evidence but also the context of the article.
In this case, he found the court should also consider the balance of freedom of speech, editorial judgment in the overall context of public interest, whether it is in the public interest to publish a statement notwithstanding its defamatory nature and the meaning of the article.
The editorial was published in the newspaper on April 10, 2009 following a match between Tuen Mun Progoal and Happy Valley Athletic Association, which was run by Pui.
It referred to several local Tuen Mun Progoal players posting comments on their blogs accusing fellow mainland teammates of not performing to their best as "money was involved".
The editorial mentioned that Pui did not answer reporters' questions concerning Progoal at a press conference, but gave detailed information about the club three days later. The paper drew the inference that Pui acted suspiciously .
Pui said the article had damaged his reputation. A jury found the paper had defamed Pui and the court ordered it to pay him HK$500,000 in compensation.
But Lam found in the light of the trial judge's directions, the jury could come to the conclusion that an allegation that someone was giving contradictory versions to the press was generally defamatory. He noted that Pui did give more information concerning his knowledge and his connections with Progoal.
"The article itself did not allege any wrongdoing on the part of [Pui]. As we said, it only urged the [Independent Commission Against Corruption] to investigate thoroughly. In the context of the facts of this case … we do not regard these are serious allegations," Lam wrote.
