Mapp v News Group Newspapers Ltd (Gillan v News Group Newspapers Ltd, Goscomb v News Group Newspapers Ltd, Watton v News Group Newspapers Ltd)

On an interlocutory application concerning the meaning of allegedly defamatory words, the judge must exercise an independent judgment and delimit the meanings which the words are reasonably capable of bearing. The restrictive strike-out standard for plain and obvious cases does not apply.

The governing question is the impression which the words could convey to an ordinary, fair-minded reader, using general knowledge and avoiding strained interpretations. An allegation of investigation or suspicion does not, without sufficient contextual support, impute actual guilt. Where words are incapable of bearing the pleaded meaning, the judge must rule accordingly, although a claimant may rely at trial on a lesser defamatory meaning within the permissible range.

Police officers brought separate defamation actions concerning the same newspaper report. The report stated that eight officers had been accused of involvement in drug dealing and bribery, had been transferred while an investigation proceeded, and had worked with a police sergeant who killed himself after being ordered to provide information about former colleagues.

The officers pleaded that the report meant that each of them was guilty and that the sergeant killed himself because he would otherwise have confirmed their involvement. News Group Newspapers Ltd applied under O.82,r.3(a) for a ruling that the words were incapable of bearing that meaning. Sir Michael Davies, sitting in the Queen's Bench Division, declined to make the order.

The defendant appealed. The central issues were the proper approach under O.82,r.3(a) and whether the article was reasonably capable of imputing actual guilt, rather than reasonable suspicion, to every officer.

1. Appeals allowed unanimously. Lord Justice Hirst delivered the judgment, with which Lord Justice Millett and Lord Justice Hutchison agreed. The words were incapable of bearing the pleaded meaning that each officer was actually guilty of drug dealing and bribery.

2. When deciding an application under O.82,r.3(a), the judge must evaluate the words and delimit the range of meanings which they are reasonably capable of bearing. The judge must exercise an independent judgment in accordance with the established defamation authorities. The restrictive approach associated with O.18,r.19 does not apply. If a pleaded meaning lies outside the permissible range, the judge must rule accordingly.

3. The natural and ordinary meaning includes implications which an ordinary reader could draw using general knowledge and experience. It excludes meanings produced by a strained, forced or unreasonable interpretation. The question is whether a reasonable person could, rather than necessarily would, understand the words in the alleged defamatory sense. Meaning is determined by the broad impression of the publication in context.

4. [1964] AC 234 established that reporting an investigation does not automatically impute guilt. Although language about suspicion may sometimes imply that suspicion is well founded, it does not authorise a double inference from an inquiry, through suspicion, to actual guilt. The reference to the sergeant's suicide did not transform the article's meaning. A reasonable reader could attribute the suicide to several other causes, including personal concealment, stress or depression.

5. Even if the article could have imputed guilt to at least one officer, a reasonable reader could not infer that all eight were guilty. That collective imputation was essential to the pleaded meaning relied upon by each claimant.

6. The article was capable of imputing reasonable suspicion against all eight officers. The claimants could therefore seek to plead that lesser meaning, although the application to amend made at the appeal was refused. Costs were awarded to the defendant in the Court of Appeal and as to two-thirds of the proceedings below.

1. Court of Appeal: The defendant's appeals were allowed unanimously. The court held that the words were incapable of bearing the pleaded meaning of actual guilt. The application to amend was refused.

2. High Court, Queen's Bench Division: Sir Michael Davies declined the defendant's application under O.82,r.3(a) for a ruling that the words were incapable of bearing the pleaded meaning.