Charleston v News Group Newspapers Ltd

In defamation, where no legal innuendo based on extrinsic facts is pleaded, the natural and ordinary meaning of a publication is the single meaning conveyed to the ordinary, reasonable and fair-minded reader. The publication must be considered as a whole. A claimant cannot isolate a defamatory headline, photograph or passage from related text merely because some readers may stop there.

Whether accompanying words neutralise an apparent defamatory imputation remains a contextual question. The tribunal may consider the nature of the imputation, the language of the corrective material, and the layout and relative prominence of each part. Curative words may fail if the ordinary reader would not notice them. Evidence of meanings actually understood by individual readers is inadmissible, except where a legal innuendo depends on extrinsic facts known to them.

Charleston v News Group Newspapers Ltd concerned a libel claim by two actors whose faces had been superimposed, without their knowledge or consent, on the bodies of participants in sexual images. The newspaper's prominent headlines and photographs could suggest that the actors had willingly participated. The captions and accompanying article explained that the images had been fabricated and described the actors as unwitting victims.

Blofeld J tried a preliminary issue concerning whether the publication was capable of bearing the pleaded defamatory meanings. He decided the issue for the defendants and dismissed the action. The Court of Appeal unanimously dismissed the plaintiffs' appeal: Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Transcript No. 1549 of 1993.

The plaintiffs appealed to the House of Lords. They accepted that the publication was not defamatory when read as a whole, but argued that liability could arise because a significant group of readers would look only at the headlines and photographs. The central issue was whether those elements could be severed from the related text when determining the publication's natural and ordinary meaning.

1. Disposition. The House unanimously dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Court of Appeal's order. Lord Bridge of Harwich delivered the leading speech. Lord Goff of Chieveley, Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle and Lord Mustill expressly adopted his reasons. Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead delivered concordant reasons and reached the same conclusion.
2. The governing meaning. Per Lord Bridge, where no legal innuendo is alleged, the natural and ordinary meaning is the meaning, including any inferential meaning, which the publication would convey to the ordinary, reasonable and fair-minded reader. The tribunal must attribute one meaning to the publication. It cannot divide the readership into groups according to the parts which different readers may have read. Lord Nicholls independently applied the same single standard. The single-meaning analysis in Slim v Daily Telegraph Ltd [1968] 2 Q.B. 157 was applied.
3. The whole publication. Per Lord Bridge, a claimant cannot isolate a headline, photograph or passage where related material throws a different light upon it. The bane and antidote must be considered together, in accordance with Chalmers v Payne (1835) 2 C.M. & R. 156. Allowing recovery according to an inferred group of readers who stopped at the headlines would be incompatible with the ordinary-reader and single-meaning principles. Evidence of how actual readers understood the publication is likewise inadmissible, subject to the distinct exception for legal innuendo based on extrinsic facts.
4. Context and application. Lord Bridge explained that curative text does not invariably neutralise a defamatory headline. The question depends on the nature and language of the material, its layout, and the relative prominence of the bane and antidote. Lord Nicholls added that an ordinary reader might not notice corrective words placed inconspicuously or on another page. Here, however, the captions accompanying the images stated that the faces had been superimposed on other bodies. Nearby material also described the actors as victims and unwitting participants. The ordinary reader could not reasonably have concluded that they had participated willingly. The appeal was therefore dismissed, with the appellants ordered to pay the respondents' costs.

1. House of Lords: In Charleston v News Group Newspapers Ltd [1995] UKHL 6, reported at [1995] 2 AC 65, the House unanimously affirmed the Court of Appeal's order and dismissed the appeal.
2. Court of Appeal: On 17 December 1993, Butler-Sloss, Farquharson and Nolan L.JJ. unanimously dismissed the plaintiffs' appeal: Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Transcript No. 1549 of 1993.
3. High Court: On 22 January 1993, Blofeld J determined the preliminary issue in favour of the defendants and consequently dismissed the libel action.