JUDGMENTBY: CHAN J

A slander is actionable per se if it contains an allegation or imputation of a crime which can be punished corporally: Webb v Beavan (1883) 11 QBD 609 Pollock B. said at p. 610:

"... I think the passages in Comyns Digest are conclusive to shew that

words which impute any criminal offence are actionable per se. The

distinction seems a natural one, that words imputing that the plaintiff

has rendered himself liable to the mere infliction of a fine are not

slanderous, but that it is slanderous to say that he has done something

for which he can be made to suffer corporally."

In Hellwig v Mitchell [1910] 1 KB 609, 612 Bray J. put it thus:

"In the absence of special damage slander is only actionable in certain

cases, one of which is where the words impute the commission of a

criminal offence punishable by imprisonment".

The judge went on to say at pp. 613 -- 614:

"It was contended, however, that the rule does not require that the

criminal offence should be one punishable by imprisonment, and that it

is sufficient if the offence be one which renders the offender liable

to summary arrest and de

Click Here to Read the rest of this document