Newsgroup Newspapers Ltd & Anor v Campbell

A libel award may reflect the gravity and prominence of the publication, its effect on the claimant, aggravating and mitigating conduct, partial justification, prior reputation and the need for vindication. Proven partial justification may substantially reduce damages even though it does not defeat liability.

The claimant’s conduct during the litigation is also relevant. Serious dishonesty directed at improving the claim, including procuring false evidence and making corrupt allegations against innocent persons, may severely reduce the award.

Where material misdirection or procedural unfairness invalidates a jury’s assessment, the Court of Appeal may set the award aside. If the parties request substitution rather than a retrial, the court must determine the proper factual basis and make its own assessment.

The owners and editor of the News of the World appealed from Hedley J’s judgment giving effect to a jury award of £350,000 general damages for libel. Liability was no longer contested. The newspaper accepted that it could not justify allegations that the claimant had sexually abused boys, recorded the abuse and marketed the recordings.

The disputed issues concerned damages. The newspaper relied on a video as partial justification for allegations that the claimant had a sexual interest in boys. The claimant alleged that the video had been falsified and that the newspaper had procured corrupt evidence. The newspaper alleged that the claimant had fabricated evidence and procured witnesses to lie.

The appeal raised whether the summing up and trial were fair, what factual findings should govern damages, and what sum should replace the jury’s award if it were set aside.

1. Appeal allowed unanimously. In the joint judgment of Schiemann, Mantell and Mance LJJ, the jury award of £350,000 was set aside and general damages of £30,000 were substituted. The summing up did not fairly present the newspaper’s case. It failed adequately to analyse the chronology, the claimant’s changing accounts, the distinct issues concerning the recordings, and evidence materially affecting credibility. The cumulative deficiencies deprived the defendants of a fair trial.

2. A libel appeal may succeed for material misdirection or inadequate summing up, procedural unfairness sufficient to undermine the award, or an excessive award. Misdirection or unfairness would ordinarily justify a retrial. Here, both parties asked the court to substitute its own award.

3. The court rejected the claimant’s allegation that the newspaper knowingly relied upon a fabricated recording. The recording was genuine and established significant partial justification: although actual sexual abuse of boys was not proved, it demonstrated a highly perverted sexual interest in them. Under Pamplin v Express Newspapers Ltd [1988] 1 WLR 166, facts falling short of a complete defence may substantially reduce damages.

4. A claimant’s serious misconduct during the litigation may reduce damages. The claimant had procured false statements, attempted to suborn his son, attacked an innocent third party, and made grave allegations of professional corruption against solicitors. Ignoring conduct directed at fraudulently increasing the recovery would affront justice.

5. The libel remained extremely grave. It alleged actual and criminal sexual abuse, was prominently published to millions, was never withdrawn or apologised for, and was defended through a lengthy trial. The conduct of the freelance journalist responsible for the material supplied to the newspaper also provided aggravating features for which the appellants accepted responsibility.

6. Partial justification reduced the maximum sustainable award to no more than £100,000. The claimant’s abuse of the litigation process required a further severe reduction to £30,000. The independent Channel 4 programme could not increase damages against the newspaper because the appellants neither controlled nor bore responsibility for that publication.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): The appeal was allowed. The jury’s £350,000 award was set aside and £30,000 general damages substituted by the joint judgment of the court: [2002] EWCA Civ 1143.
2. Queen’s Bench Division: Following a trial before Hedley J and a jury, the claimant was awarded £350,000 general damages for libel. The judge granted the defendants permission to appeal. No neutral or report citation for this stage was stated.