The Johnny Depp -v- News Group Newspapers trial concluded last week and has been widely publicised and reported on around the World.
However, the Act failed to define “serious harm” which has led to some uncertainty as to the threshold a Claimant must reach to prove that a statement is defamatory.
Under Section 1(1) of the Act, a statement is not defamatory unless its publication has caused or is likely to cause serious harm to the reputation of the Claimant.
In addition, if the Claimant is a body that trades for profit, a statement is not defamatory unless its publication has caused or is likely to cause the body serious financial loss.
In what is believed to be the first case to address the issue of “serious harm”, the High Court in the matter of Ruth Cooke and Midland Heart – v – MGN Limited Trinity Mirror Midlands Limited has provided much needed guidance.
The case involved an article that was published in the Sunday Mirror following the broadcasting of Benefits Street on Channel 4, a documentary that focused on the lives of residents in Birmingham who were dependant on social security benefits. The programme attracted great attention and contributed to a widespread national debate about benefits.
The Claimants argued that the one paragraph contained within the article, which referred to the First Claimant’s salary and the fact that the second Claimant owned property on the street in questions, was, when read in context, defamatory.
The Judgment – “Serious Harm”
The Judge (Mr Justice Bean) in considering the issue of the “serious harm” test commented that the Court should employ a broad assessment approach and that there were two important considerations, namely the seriousness of the allegations and the extent of the circulation of any libel.
He stated that it was not necessary in every case to satisfy the “serious harm” test as certain statements were so obviously likely to cause serious harm to a person’s reputation that the likelihood can be inferred. The example given by the Judge was of a National newspaper with a large circulation accusing an individual of being a terrorist or a paedophile.
The Judge attached “significance” to the Defendant’s apology, insofar as it was sufficient to minimise or eradicate any unfavourable impression in the mind of any “hypothetical reasonable reader” who had read both the original article and the apology.
In conclusion the Judge decided there was no specific evidence that the article had caused serious harm to the Claimants’ reputations. Further, he did not consider that the Claimants had shown that it was more likely than not to cause serious harm to their reputations in the future.
Whilst some uncertainty remains in respect of what a Claimant must prove to satisfy the “serious harm” test, the judgment is welcomed guidance on the matter and confirms the highly held view that the threshold is high.
The judgment also brings into clear focus the weight that will be given to apologies when considering whether a claimant has suffered serious harm.
Whilst it was inevitable that the example given by the Judge in respect of allegations of being a terrorist or paedophile would satisfy the “serious harm” test, it is the less extreme cases, such as this one, were clarity was and continues to be needed. Such clarity will only come as more and more cases go through the Courts.
If nothing else, this case should raise caution with potential Claimants who seek to pursue defamation claims without being able to evidence serious harm to their reputation.
For more information
Should you wish to discuss the implications of this case further, or wish to discuss how your organisation deals with potentially defamatory comments, please contact Cynyr Rhys on 0121 214 3619 or email@example.com.
On 30 June 2020, Boris Johnson announced radical changes to the planning system.
Six months after the first recorded case of COVID-19 in the UK, it is clear that charities, community organisations and volunteers have played a huge role in the UK’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic
This article is further to our previous e-briefing (published on 22 July 2020) where we informed you that there are new temporary measures (a new Practice Direction PD55c) that have been brought into deal with possession claims, following the stay being lifted on possession claims on 22 August 2020.
A podcast from Alex Loxton and Sumi Begum from our housing litigation team, discussing injunction applications and the courts approach in light of COVID-19 and the ban on possession proceedings.
We have asked colleagues in the Employment Law team to highlight what they think is key to managing a redundancy programme well.
The use of video remote witnessing of Wills will become law.
There’s no doubt about it, the COVID-19 pandemic has placed incredible pressure on the NHS.
Chancellor Rishi Sunak’s £3.8 billion SDLT giveaway may bring benefits for registered providers of social housing, according to ACS experts in the sector.
We finally have some detail about what will happen after the end of the possession stay/evictions ban on 23 August 2020.
To receive invitations to our events, as well as information and articles on legal issues and sector developments that are of interest to you, please sign up to Newsroom.