The court in considering whether the publications were defamatory of the plaintiff, held that the publications were defamatory of the plaintiff. The court found that the defendant maligned the plaintiff’s person by referring to her as an enemy of the people and failed to publish the truth by grossly exaggerating facts.

The court then examined whether the defendant had any defence available to it. The court found that justification as a defence could not stand as the defendant failed to uphold its duty to disprove falsehood and the defendant could not claim qualified privilege as the it had reported beyond the facts that unfolded. The court was satisfied that the publication was made with malice.

Consequently, the court entered judgment in favor of the plaintiff.