Geenty v Channel Four Television Corporation & Anor

Defamatory meaning is assessed by the natural and ordinary meaning conveyed to the ordinary reasonable viewer watching a television programme once. The viewer is not unduly suspicious or avid for scandal, but may read between the lines and indulge in loose thinking.

Under O.82,r.3A, the judge fixes the range of meanings the words are reasonably capable of bearing. The Court of Appeal may intervene more readily where a pleaded meaning has been excluded altogether. Context, including the sequence of a broadcast and visual material, may link a named person to a general allegation. An apparent qualification does not necessarily remove the defamatory impression.

This was a defamation action arising from a television programme questioning murder convictions and criticising the treatment of the deceased in hospital and police custody. The claimant, a police inspector, alleged that the programme meant that he had probably inflicted injuries on the deceased and had seriously neglected his care.

May J held that the first meaning was incapable of referring to the claimant, although the second meaning was capable of doing so. The claimant appealed. By respondent’s notice, the defendants challenged the finding that the programme was capable of imputing police maltreatment generally. The central issues were the permissible meanings of the broadcast and whether its context was capable of identifying the claimant with both allegations.

Lord Justice Hirst delivered the leading judgment. Lord Justice Millett agreed. Lord Justice Brooke, with considerable hesitation, did not dissent from the order proposed.

1. Application under O.82,r.3A. The judge must evaluate the words complained of and delimit the range of meanings of which they are reasonably capable. A pleaded meaning outside that range must be ruled out, although a lesser defamatory meaning within the range remains available at trial. The court applied the approach in Mapp v News Group Newspapers Limited [1997] EMLR 397.
2. Meaning and appellate review. The court applied the principles summarised in Gillick v B.B.C. [1966] EMLR 267, drawing on Lewis v The Daily Telegraph [1964] AC 234. The ordinary viewer is not unduly suspicious or avid for scandal, but the court must avoid over-elaborate or excessively literal analysis. The question is reserved to the judge rather than the jury, although it is not a question of law in the true sense: Morgan v Odhams Press Ltd [1971] 1 WLR 1239; Slim v The Daily Telegraph [1968] 2 QB 157.
3. Appeal under the rule. The general reluctance to interfere with an O.82,r.3A ruling, described in Hinduja v Asia TV Limited unreported, 25th November 1997, applied with less force where the judge had excluded a pleaded meaning altogether rather than allowed it to go to the jury.
4. Application to the broadcast. The programme was capable of imputing maltreatment to the police generally. The references to unrecorded injuries, blood in the police cell and the final interview with the Member of Parliament were capable of sustaining that impression. The qualification that the truth might never be known did not necessarily remove it.
5. Reference to the claimant. The short interval between the general allegation and the duty solicitor’s interview, together with the custody-record image naming the claimant and the criticism of the arrest, was capable of linking him personally to the maltreatment allegation. The appeal was therefore allowed. The respondent’s notice was rejected, with costs here and below. Leave to appeal to the House of Lords was refused.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Allowed the claimant’s appeal and rejected the defendants’ challenge to the finding that the broadcast was capable of imputing police maltreatment generally.
• High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division May J held on 11 January 1996 that the first pleaded meaning was incapable of referring to the claimant, but that the second pleaded meaning was capable of doing so.