(1983)1983 July 19 [HADJIANASTASSIOU, STVLIANIDES & PIKIS, JJ.] TAKIS HJIDEMETRIOU, Appellant. 1."TELEGRAPHOS" PUBLISHING COMPANY LTD.,
- COSTAS GEORGHIOU HIPP1S. Respondents. {CriminalAppeal No. 4387). Criminal Procedure—Appeal—Piecemeal appeals—Ruling—Whether an appeal lies against a ruling—Even if it lies it is highly undesirable—After determination of the case an appellant may raise an appeal on the points relevant to the decision, including rulings, given in the course of the trial. 5 Press Law, Cap. 79—Correction—Publication—Section 24 of Law— Prerequisites for the application of—Obligation of proprietor to publish correction exists only when there is strict compliance with s.24—Correction should emanatefrom person affected andshould be limited to a denial of a statement offact, whichis alleged to be 10 incorrect and to a statement setting forth the correct facts. Statutes—Construction—Penal Statutes—To be strictly construed— —Section 24 of the Press Law, Cap.
- In its issue of 4.4.82 "Haravghi" newspaper published in the first pagenews or information under the title: "The Archbishop 15 leads movement for the splitting of the democratic forces". In the said article it was stated that on 26.3.82 a meeting took place at the Archbishopric in which Matsis and Zachariades on behalf ofDISSY Party, the appellant,Aleccos Michaelidesfor NEDIPA, Tassos Papadopoulos for E.K. and Mikis Tembriotis for PEAM, 20 participated. The object of the Archbishop, who convened the meeting, was the nomination of a common candidate by the 268 2 C.L.R. HjiDemetriou v. "Telegraphos" participants, in the meeting, for the forthcoming presidential elections. 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 On the following day the appellant delivered to the chief Editor of "Haravghi" a letter dated5.4.82,*whichwasaddressed to respondents 1wherein it was stated that the contents of the publication relating to him, were untrue and called upon them, topublish thefollowing correction, in virtue of the provisionsof section 24 of the Press Law, Cap.
- "Due to a mistake and/or oversight we proceeded in our issueofthe4thApril, 1982tothepublicationoftheinformation that Mr. Takis HadjiDemetriou, Secretary-General of S.P. EDEK, on the 26th March, 1982 took part in a conference at the Archbishopric together with representatives of DISSY, NEDIPA, E.K. and PEAM. In fact and aswe ascertained Mr. T. HadjiDemetriou never had any meeting or conference with the above at the Archbishopric or anywhere else. We express our sorrow for any insult and/or defamation which wascaused to Mr. T. HadjiDemetriou as a result of the said publication." Therewasnoresponsetothisletterandtheappellantinstituted proceedings against the proprietor of the newspaper and the person named under section3(A)
(1)of thePressLaw,Cap.79,as responsible for the management and control of the newspaper answerable in criminal Law for offences committed by the proprietors. At the end of the casefor the prosecutionthetrial Court concluded that the letter of the appellant did not comply with the requirements of s.24(l) and the proviso thereto and that this defect absolved the proprietor of the obligation cast on him by s.24** of the Press Law and therefore, theingredients of the offence created by s.24
(3)were not proved. Upon appeal by the prosecutor it was submitted that as the law does not prescribe a specific form of correction, the letter satisfied the statutory requirements and at any rate the proprietor had a duty in law to accede to the request; that they might reframe the form of the correction sent to them in such • The letter is quoted at pp. 274-275 post *· Section 24isquoted in full at pp.276-277 post. 269 HjiDemctriou v. '"TdegrapW
(1983)a way as to appear that it emanated from the appellant and not from the newspaper. Atthe commencement of the hearing counselfortheresponddents raised the objection that the appeal is out of time in so far asit related to a-rulingof thetrial Courtwhichwasdelivered 5 on 1.2.1983 whereas the appeal was filed on 12.3.
- The appeal wasdirected against thejudgment of the Court delivered on 2.3.
- Held, onthepreliminary objection, thatirrespectiveofwhether an appeal lies against such a ruling or notas such appeals are lu highly undesirable, the appeal, was rightly taken after the determination of the case and an appellant may raise an appeal on all points relevant to the decision, including objection and dissatisfaction with rulings given in the course of the hearing. The appeal, therefore, is not out of time and the objection of 15 counsel for the respondents fails. On the merits of theappeal: That section 24 is a penal statute and has to be construed narrowly in favour of the press,in caseof doubt, on whom the obligation is imposed; that the correction under s. 24, should 20 be limited to denial of a statement of fact which is alleged to be incorrect and to a statement setting forth the correct facts in connection therewith; that the law imposes an obligation only in the event of strict compliance with the above; that the letter of the appellant was not a correction that appeared to 25 the eyes of the readers as amanating from the person affected; it wasnot a denial of the publication of 4.4.1982 but it savours of an apology from the newspaper; that it was outside the ambit and the spirit of the Law; accordingly the appeal must be dismissed. 30 Appeal dismissed. Observationswith regardtothedesirability ofreforming theLaw sothatthe rightof response beextended tocover also comments and not only statements offacts and that the period provided in the requestto be enlargedfrom ten days to thirty days. 35 Appeal against acquittal. Appeal by Takis Hadjidemetriou, with the sanction of the Attorney-General of the Republic, against the judgment of the 270 2 CL.R. HjiDemetrioo »• "Telegraphos" District Court of Nicosia (Kramvis, Ag. D.J.) given on the 2nd March, 1983 (Criminal Case No. 870/82) whereby the respondentswereacquitted of a charge of failing topublish a correction of fact, contrary to section 24
(1)and
(3)of the Press Law, Cap. 5 79 and section 20 of the Criminal Code, Cap. 154. P. Frakalas, for the appellant. M. Papapetrou, for the respondents. Cur. adv. vult. HADJIANASTASSIOU J.: The judgment of the Court will be 10 delivered by Mr. Justice Stylianides. STYLIANIDES J.: The appellant prosecutor is the General Secretary of EDEK Party. The first respondents are the proprietors of "Haravghi", a daily newspaper, and the second respondent is the person named under s.3(A)(l) of the Press Law. 15 Cap. 79, as responsible for the management and control of the said newspaper answerable in criminal law for offences committed by the proprietors. The appellant complains against the acquittal of the respondents of a charge of failing to publish a correction of fact, con20 trary tc section 24
(1)and
(3)of the Press Law, Cap. 79,and s.20 of the Criminal Code, Cap.
- At the commencement of the hearing learned counsel for the respondents raised the objection that this appeal is out of time in so far as it relates to ground No. I, as the ruling of the trial 25 Court that the truth or falsity of the publication is not relevant or.material for the purposes of s.24 was delivered on 1.2.83 whereas this appeal was filed on 12.3.
- Tbe appeal isdirected against the judgment of the Court delivered on 2.3.
- The appeal is taken under the Courts of Justice Law, No. 30 14/60, s.25, and the Criminal Procedure Law, Cap. 155, s.137, and was sanctioned, as prescribed by Law, by the Attorney-General. In the first.place it is very doubtful - and we leave it open whether the ruling of 1.2.83 constitutes a judgment so as to 35 enable a litigant to appeal against it. The appellate jurisdiction of this Court is statutory. It derives from the Constitution and 271 Stylianides J. HjiDemetriou v. "Telegraphos'
(1983)from theparticular statute providing for and regulatingappeals. Such appeals are made subject to rules of procedure governing thematter. Weknowofhoruleprovidingfor aseparateappeal from a ruling on the admissibility of evidence. Even if the ruling constituted a «judgment and could be the subject of an 5 appeal, such piecemeal appeals would bemost undesirable and should be discouraged by the Courts. In Costas Korallis v.Cleanthis Christoforou andOthers,
(1957)22C.L.R. 159,thetrial Court in alibel action,madea rulingas towhowasthefirst partyinthetrial. Appealwastakenagainst 10 that ruling. 7ekia, J., at p.161 said:"In thefirst placeitisverydoubtful whethertherulingmade could beembodied in an order so asto enable a litigant to appeal against it. Indeed a trial Court conducting the hearing of a case and directing the various phases of trial 15 usually has to make a number of rulings. To hold that each of these rulings constitutesadecision within themeaning of section 27 of the Courts of Justice Law, 1953,and, therefore, issubject to appeal to the Supreme Court would unnecessarily protract litigation and encourage piecemeal 20 appeals in one and the same case, which is highly undesirable." In TheRepublic v. Georghios Theocli Kalli,1961 C.L.R. 266, Vassiliades,J., ashethen was,said that interruption incriminal casesishighly undesirablefor a numberofobviousreasons,and 25 Josephides, J., said:"Needlesstosaythat itishighlydesirablethat thetrial ofa criminal case and especially an Assize case involving a charge of premeditated murder should not be interrupted unduly." In Pinelopi Demetriou Christofidou v. Elli P. Nemitsas and Others,
(1963)2 C.L.R. 269, at pp. 272-273, we read:"In the course of a trial, or of a hearing of any proceeding before a trial Court, there maywellbenumerous occasions when the Court mayhavetomakearulingonobjections or 35 other matters raised by either side. One need not have a strong imagination to seetheembarrassment whichmay be caused,inbothcivilandcriminalmatters,iftherewastobe 272 30 2 C.L.R. HjiDemetriou v. Tdegraphos" Stylianides J. an internn/^n cf the proceeding for the purposes of an appeal, every tine a party wasdissatisfied withthe Court's ruling." And further down, after referring to Kalli case (supra):5 "As that was a criminal case, I shall not make further reference to it here,except for saying that such interruptions duringatrial,areas'highlyundesirable' incriminalmatters as they are in civil suits''. And in Nedi Charalambous v. The Municipality ofNicosia, 10
(1966)2 C.L.R. 34, an appeal against the ruling made by the District Court of Nicosia dismissing a plea of autrefois aquit, Vassiliades, Ag. P., said:- 15 20 "We would only add that what was said regarding appeals from rulings or decisions made in the course of civil or criminaltrialsinPinelopiChristofidouv.ElliNemitsas,
(1963)2C.L.R. 269,should be borne in mind by litigants intendingtotakesuchacourse. Inthecircumstancesofthiscase we do rot propose making any order for costs; but in different circumstances, such an order might be one of the ways of discouraging 'piecemeal appeals* causing embarrassment,delay and expense inlitigation, civilorcriminal." In view of the foregoing weighty pronouncements, irrespectiveofwhether anappealliesagainstsucharulingornot,assuch appeals are highly undesirable, the appeal was rightly taken 25 after the determination of the case and an appellant may raise anappealonallpointsrelevanttothedecision, includingobjection and dissatisfaction with rulings given in the course of the hearing. The appeal, therefore, is not out of time and the objection of counsel for the respondents fails. 30 The salient facts of the case are:- In its issue of 4.4.82 "Haravghi" published in the first page news or information under the title: "The Archbishop leads movement for the splitting of the democratic forces." In the saidarticleitisstatedthat on26.3.82ameetingtookplaceatthe 35 Archbishopric in which Matsis and 7achariades on behalf of DISSY Party, the appellant, Aleccos Michaelides for NEDIPA, TassosPapadopoulosfor E.K. and MikisTembriotisfor PEAM, 273 Stylianides J. HjiDemetriou v. "Tdegraphos"
(1983)participated. The object of the Archbishop, who convened the meeting, was the nomination of a common candidate by the participants in the meeting for the forthcoming presidential elections. On the following day - 5.4.82 - Demetris Phanaris (P.W.3), on the instructions of the appellant, delivered to Kannaouros, the Chief Editor of "Haravghi", at the offices of "Haravghi", a letter which we consider pertinent to quote verbatim:- 5 "Λευκωσία 5 'Απριλίου 1982 Κυρίους Εκδοτική 'Εταιρεία Τηλέγραφο?* Λευκωσία. Κύριοι, Σας ίτληροφορώ διι είναι παντελώς αναληθή όσα ανα γράφονται σχετικά μέ το πρόσωπο μου στην πρώτη σελίδα 15 τη* έκδοσης της 4ης 'Απριλίου 1982 της εφημερίδας'Χαραυ γή* που εκδίδει ή εταιρεία σας ΰπό τον ένιάστηλο τίτλο " Ό 'Αρχιεπίσκοπος ηγείται κίνησης γιά διάσπαση τών δημοκρατικών δυνάμεων'. Γιά αυτό πέρα από την έκ φραση της έντονης διαμαρτυρίας μου σας καλώ σύμφωνα 20 μέ τόν περί τύπου Νόμο, Κεφ. 179, άρθρον 24, νά δημοσιεύ σετε τήν πιο κάτω επανόρθωση στην αυτή περίοπτη θέση όπως και τό αναληθές δημοσίευμα: ' 'Εκ λάθους καΐ/ή αβλεψίας μας προβήκαμε οτήν έ κδοση μας της 4ης 'Απριλίου 1982 σέ δημοσίευση της 25 είδησης ότι ό κ. Τάκης Χ" Δημητρίου, Γενικός Γραμ ματέας τοΰ Σ.Κ. ΕΔΕΚ, τήν 26 Μαρτίου 1982 έλαβε μέρος σέ σύσκεψη στην Αρχιεπισκοπή μαζί μέ εκπρο σώπους του ΔΗΣΥ, της ΔΕΔΗΠΑ, της Ε.Κ. καΐ τοΰ ΠΕΑΜ. Στην πραγματικότητα καί όπως δ'.οπτστώ- 30 σαμε ό κ. Τ. ΧατζηΔημητρίου ουδέποτε είχε οίανδήποτε σννάντηση ή σύσκεψη μέ τους πιό πάνω στην 'Αρχιε πισκοπή f\ οπουδήποτε άλλου. 'Εκφράζουμε δέ τήν λύπη μας γιά τυχόν προσβολή Kcd/ή δυσφήμιση πού προξενήθηκε στον κ. Τ. Χ" Δημητρίου σαν αποτέλεσμα « τοΰ σχετικού δημοσιεύματος'. 274 10 Ζ C.L.R. HjlDemetriou v. "Tetegraphos" StyUanMcs J. Είναι αυτονόητο πώς επιφυλάσσω όλα τά νόμιμα δικαι ώματα μουσέ περίπτωση πούθάαρνηθείτενά δημοσιεύσετε τήν πιό πάνω επανόρθωση. (Ύπ.) Τάκης Χατζηδημητρίου". 5 ("Nicosia 5thApril 1982 Messrs. 'Telegraphos' Publishing Company Nicosia. 10 15 20 25 30 Sirs, I inform you thatall thatis published in thefirst page of the issue of the 4th April 1982 of 'Haravgi' newspaper which is being edited by your company about my person undera ninth columntitleThe Archbishopleadsmovement for the splitting of the'democratic forces' is completely untrue. For this reason, further to the expression of a strong protest, 1call upon you in accordance with section 24 of the Press Law, Cap. 179, to publish the following correction in the same conspicuous place as the untrue publication. 'Due to a mistake and/or oversight we proceeded,in ourissueofthe4tbApril 1982,tothepublicationofthe information that Mr.TakisHadjiDemetriou,SecretaryGeneral of S.P. EDEK,on the26th March,1982took part in aconference at theArchbishopric togetherwith representatives of DISSY, NEDIPA, E.K. andPEAM. In fact and as we ascertained Mr. T. Hadjidemetriou never hadany meetingor conference with theabove at the Archbishopric or anywhere else. We express our sorrow for any insult and/or defamation which was caused to Mr. T. Hadjidemetriou as a result of the said publication*. It is self-evident that 1 reserve all my legal rights in case you refuse to publish theabove correction. (Sgd) Takis Hadjidemetriou"). Therewas noresponse to this letter; it was notpublished in 35 "Haravghi" newspaper. At theclose of thecasefor theprosecution thetrial Court,on submission madeby counselfor theaccused,ruled thatnoprima 275 Stylianides J. HjlDemetriou v. "Telegraphos"
(1983)faciecasewasmadeoutagainsttheaccusedsufficiently torequire them to make their defence and proceeded and acquitted them. The trial Court concluded that the letter of the appellant (exhibit No. 1)did not comply with the requirements of s.24(l) and the proviso thereto and that this defect absolved the pro- 5 prietor of the obligation cast on him by s.24 of the Press Law and, therefore, the ingredients of the offence created by s.24
(3)were not proved. Section 24 of the Press Law reads as follows:"24.
(1)Subject to subsection
(2)hereof,theproprietor shall 10 publish free ofcharge,not later than in the second issueof his newspaper after receipt thereof, a correction without additions oromissionsofany statement offact publishedin such newspaper if so requested in writing by the person referred to in such statement, and any suchcorrection shall 15 be given the same prominence as the original statement: Provided that (
- a)such correction shall be limited to a denial of the statement of fact which is alleged to be incorrect and to a statement setting forth the correct fact in 20 connection therewith; (
- b)therequestforsuchcorrection shallbemadewithin ten days from the date of the statement in connection withwhichsuchrequest ismade or, if the person affected is not in the Colony when the 25 statement is published, within ten days from his return to the Colony; (
- c)if theperson affected diesbefore the expiration of the ten days as herein before, the request may be made, within that period, by any cf his heirs. 30
(2)The proprietor mayrefuse topublisha correction ifit contains matter which, on the face of it,isdefamatory and mightexposetheproprietortoproceedingscriminalorcivil.
(3)Any proprietor who refuses or fails to comply with a request as in subsection
(1)hereof shall be guilty of an 35 offence and shall be liable to imprisonment not exceeding threemonthsor to a fine not exceedingtwenty-five pounds or to both such imprisonment and fine. 276 2 C.L.R. HjiDemetriou v. "Telegraphos" Stylianides J.
(4)Proceedings for an offence under thissection shallnot be instituted except bythe person havingarightto makea request under the provisions of subsection
(1)hereof. 5
(5)Nothing in this section contained shall prejudice or affect any other right or remedy of the person affected by any statement published in any newspaper". ThereisnocomparableprovisionintheEnglishLaw.Attempts togivebystatutearight ofresponseortoreplytothereadersor to persons affected by publications in the English newspapers 10 havenot proved successful. The right to response, however, is wellembedded inthe French Law. It isoneofthe fundamental rights of the personality for over a century. The right of rectification and reply was introduced in France in 1822and today isgoverned byss. 12 and 13 of Law 13.7.1881 15 asamended by Laws29th September, 1919,andOrdinance26th August, 1944, and Law 5th October,
- Similar provisions are found in Belgium, Denmark, Luxemburg and Italy. In Greece it was introduced as early as 1831 during the rule of Kapodistrias. Presently the right of rectification and reply is 20 governed by Law 1092/
- In this country it was introdjced by the Press Law of 1947 (Law No. 28/47). The press is a very important element in modern society. It renders an important service to thepublic. Thepressisrightly considered as the defender of freedom of opinion in the 25 wholespectrumoflife-political,economic,social,philosophicand literary. The press is often referred to as the fourth power of State. The true freedon of the press, however, implies equal freedom for all. The presshasagreatresponsibility towards its readers and the public at large. True freedom, however, isthe 30 one that not onlydoesnot overlook but safeguards the freedom of others. The right to freedom of citizens and sections of the publicmust bejustly balanced sothat therightofthe oneisnot exercised at the expense of the right of the other. A healthy equilibrium must be maintained between competing rights to 35 freedom of expresssion. Our Constitution (Article 19)saieguards the right to freedom of speech and expression in any form, the freedom to hold opinions and receive and impart information and ideas without 277 Styiianides J. HjiDemetriou v. "Tekgrapbos" (19S3) interference. This freedom, however, is subject to conditions and restrictions prescribed by Law, that are necessary only in the interests, inter alia, of the protection of the reputation or rightsofothers. (Police v. EkdotikiEteria,
(1982)2C.L.R. 63). Freedom of expression is subject to a number of corstitu- 5 tionally valid exceptions which must be narrowly interpreted, (SundayTimes v. UnitedKingdom,
(1979)2 E.H.R.R. 245, at 281). Freedom of expression in the press should not be unwarrantably fettered. Section 24 of the Press Law aims to protect the rights of 10 others. Itisaconstitutionally validrestriction and,inourview, a necessary one. It isabsolutely necessaryfor theprotection of a person who is referred in a publication in a newspaper. A publication in a newspaper is read by many. Jt isnot possible for an individual or even an organization to counteract or to 15 restorehisreputationintheeyesofthereaderswithout this right of correction provided by s.24 of our Law. Theremedyforacivillibelisdamages,andacriminallibelmay lead to punishment of the offender. This,however, falls short of tbe immediate restoration of the truth u the mind of the 20 readers of a publicatior affecting a person. Having made these general observations, we turn to the case in hand. The law imposes on the proprietor of a paper an obligation and providescriminalsanction for failure to perform suchobligation. Thisisapenalstatuteand bastobeconstrued 25 narrowly it favour of thepress,incase of doubt, on whom the obligation is imposed. The strict construction of a penal statute is applied in requiring the fulfilment to the letter of statutory conditions precedent to the infliction of punishment. (MaxwellonInterpretationofStatutes, 12thedition,pp.239-240). 30 It was submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that as the law does net prescribe a specific form of correction, tbe letter (exhibit No. 1)satisfied the statutory requirements and at anyratetheproprietorhadadutyinlawtoaccedetotherequest; that they might reframe theform of tbecorrection sent to them 35 insuch a way as to appear that it emanated from the appellant and not from the newspaper. Having given our best consideration to the provisions of s.24 of the Law, we are of tre view that weare not entitled in this 278 2 C.L.R. HjiDemetriou v. "Tdegrapbos" Stylianides J. case to depart from the wording of the Law which is clear and unambiguous. The proprietor has a statutory duty to publish a correction without additions or omissions of any statement of fact published in such newspaper. The request should be in 5 writing by the person referred to in such statement. The correction should be limited to a denial of a statement of fact which is alleged to be incorrect and to a statement setting forth the correct facts in connection therewith. The law imposes an obligation only in the event of strict compliance with the above. 10 The word "correction" in s.24(l) must be read subject to the preceding phrase. Thus read it refers to the notice of tbe re quested correction and not correction simpliciter. The appellant requested the proprietor to publish the part of his letter which appears in quotes:- 20 30 35 40 " Έκ λάθους καΐ/ή αβλεψίας μας προβήκαμε στην έκδοση μας της 4ης Απριλίου 1982 σέ δημοσίευση της είδησης δτι ό κ. Τάκης Χ" Δημητρίου, Γενικός Γραμματέαςτοΰ Σ.Κ. ΕΔΕΚ, τήν 26 Μαρτίου 1982 έλαβε μέρος σέ σύσκεψη στην 'Αρχιεπισκοπή μαζί με εκπροσώπους του ΔΗΣΥ, τηςΝΕΔΗΠΑ, της Ε.Κ. καΐ τοΰ ΓΤΕΑΜ. Στην πραγματικότητακαΐ όπως διαπιστώσαμε ό κ. Τ. ΧατζηΔημητρίου ουδέποτε είχε οιανδήποτε συνάντηση ή σύσκεψη μέ τους πιο πάνω στην 'Αρχιεπισκοπή ή οπουδήποτε άλλου. Εκφράζουμε δέ τήν λύπη μας γιά τυχόν προσβολή καΐ/ή δυσφήμιση πού προξενήθηκε στον κ. Τ. Χ" Δημητρίου σάν αποτέλεσμα τοΰ σχετικού δημοσιεύματος". ("Due to a mistake and/or oversight we proceeded in our issue of the 4th April, 1982 to the publication of the information that Mr. Takis HadjiDemetriou, SecretaryGeneral of S.P. EDEK,.on the 26th March, 1982 took part in a conference at the Archbishopric together with representatives of DISSY, NEDIPA, E.K. and PEAM. In fact and as we ascertained Mr. T.· HadjiDemetriou never had any meeting or conference with the above at the Archbishopric or anywhere else. We express our sorrow for any insult and/or defamation which was caused to Mr. T. HadjiDemetriou as a result of the said public ation".). This is not a correction that appears to the eyes cf the readers as emanating from tiie person affected. It is rot a denial of the 279 Stylianides J. HjiDemetriou v. "Tdegraphos"
(1983)publication of4.4.82but itsavoursofanapologyfrom thenewspaper. This is outside the ambit of the spirit and the letter of the law. The object of the right to correction is to give to the reader the opportunity to read the true version as stated by the person affected. The newspaper has a duty to publish such 5 correction not later than in the second issue of its circulation after receipt of a correction. If there isa disputeasto the true facts, the newspaper isnot entitled to refuse to publish the correction requested asinexactorincomplete. (See TraiteduDroit dela Presse, by Blin, Chavanne and Drago,
(1969), and Cass. 10 crin. 2aout 1928: D.H. 1928p.465- Cass. crin. 8 juill. 1905: D.1909, 1, 407). The proprietor cannot correct any inexactitudes; he is not the judge of the correction. The proprietor maycomment or givehis ownversion on thecorrection but this must be done either before or after the correction; he is net 15 entitled to insert anything ir the text. It is unnecessary to decide if the truth or falsity cf the first publication isrelevant. Itisabunda itlyclear,however,thatthe proprietormaynot refuse topublish thatcorrection exceptifitis defamatory and might expose the proprietor to proceedings, 20 criminal or civil. Heisnotthearbiter oftruth inthesense that hecannot refuse to publish the correction though he maycomment on it. Before concluding, we would add a few general words not necessary for thedecision inthiscasebutrelevant to thereform 25 of the Law. We would suggest that the right of response be extended to cover also comments and not only statements of facts and theperiod provided intherequest tobeenlarged from ten days to thirty days. By expanding the statutory right to response thelawwould reconcilein afairer waytherights of all 30 members of the community to voice their views on matters affecting them. The expansion of the right of reply is more necessary where the press is controlled by strong financial or political interests. The right of the people - readers - to be correctly informed militatesinfavour ofarighttoresponseboth 35 on facts and comments. In view of the foregoing this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. Appeal dismissed. 280