Miller v Associated Newspapers Ltd

In a libel claim based on allegations that a police officer had conducted incompetent investigations, justification required proof that the defamatory meanings were substantially true. Where the publication conveyed that the claimant had a leading role and shared responsibility, it was unnecessary to prove sole responsibility or direct responsibility for the whole financial loss. It was necessary to prove personal failures in the exercise of the claimant’s own responsibilities.

For a level-two meaning alleging reasonable grounds to suspect neglect of duty, the defendant had to plead and prove the primary facts objectively giving rise to reasonable suspicion. The issue was judged on the facts existing at publication, viewed in their overall context. The court found that the claimant’s supervisory failures in one investigation and his inadequate leadership and briefing in the other substantially justified the publications.

The claimant, a senior Metropolitan Police officer, sued the proprietors of the Daily Mail and Evening Standard over articles concerning two investigations. The first concerned allegations of rape and sexual assault made by Nadine Milroy-Sloan against Neil and Christine Hamilton. The second concerned an earlier rape investigation which had collapsed after a Crown Court judge found the investigation grossly incompetent and stayed the proceedings.

The defendant accepted that the publications were defamatory and relied on justification. The court had to determine their natural and ordinary meanings and whether the pleaded meanings were substantially true, including whether the claimant bore personal responsibility for failures in the Hamilton investigation and whether there were reasonable grounds to suspect neglect of duty in the earlier investigation.

1. Meaning. The Hamilton articles conveyed that the claimant had a leading role and significant responsibility for important failures, including delays, management failures, poor decision-making and the arrest of the Hamiltons. They did not allege that he alone was responsible. The article concerning the earlier investigation conveyed a level-two meaning: that there were reasonable grounds to suspect failures by the claimant, rather than that his guilt was established.
2. Justification of a level-two meaning. The defendant had to prove the primary facts which objectively gave rise to reasonable grounds for suspicion. It could not rely merely on the fact that others suspected or believed the claimant to be at fault. Post-publication events could not establish the grounds existing at publication. The issue had to be assessed against the overall factual position, including any true explanation advanced by the claimant.
3. Miss B investigation. The claimant was not required to have acted as the senior investigating officer. His responsibility was supervisory. However, a crime manager was expected to monitor serious investigations, intervene when matters were going wrong, and exercise close or intrusive supervision where circumstances required it. The claimant knew of the investigating officer’s inappropriate treatment of the complainant, failed to address the lack of CCTV review and witness inquiries, and failed to provide the leadership and supervision required. There were reasonable grounds to suspect neglect of those responsibilities, and the court found that he had in fact fallen short of the expected standard.
4. Milroy-Sloan investigation. The claimant should not have referred the arrest decision upwards as a substitute for making or properly analysing the operational decision. If a senior officer was involved, the claimant had to ensure that the briefing was full, accurate and reasoned. The material available to the police substantially undermined the allegations, yet most of it was not communicated to the decision-maker. A proper analysis would have led to the conclusion that the Hamiltons should not have been arrested. The claimant was not solely responsible, but he bore a significant share of responsibility.
5. Disposition. The defamatory allegations were substantially true. The claim was dismissed and judgment was entered for the defendant.