Bond v British Broadcasting Corporation

In a libel claim, natural and ordinary meaning is determined objectively by asking how reasonable viewers or readers would understand the publication as a whole. In a lengthy broadcast, its context, overall message and flavour may create an inference beyond the express words. The court must avoid legalistic or piecemeal analysis, while giving reasons for its overall impression. A publication may convey a Chase v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2003] EMLR 11 Level Two meaning, namely strong grounds to suspect misconduct, without conveying positive guilt. Repeated or abridged publications must be assessed separately, but an extract may retain the wider imputation where its context links the subject to the central allegation.

The claimant brought a libel action against the defendant concerning a Panorama programme, its website transcript, a press release, a later follow-up programme and the follow-up transcript. The publications concerned alleged corruption in football and referred to the claimant’s apparent willingness to discuss receiving improper payments. The principal issue was whether the publications conveyed only an interest in prospective payments, or also conveyed strong grounds to suspect that the claimant had accepted corrupt payments in the past. The court was required to determine the natural and ordinary meanings of each publication.

The court determined the natural and ordinary meanings of the publications at the meaning stage of the libel action.

1. Objective and holistic assessment. The meaning of a lengthy television programme must be assessed by reference to the reasonable viewer and the programme as a whole. Its context, overall message and general flavour may be more significant than a piecemeal analysis of individual passages. The judge may take account of his or her own reaction, but must identify the factors producing the overall impression and must avoid over-analysis.
2. Level of imputation. The Panorama programme did not convey a positive conclusion that the claimant was guilty of receiving a particular corrupt payment, corresponding to a Chase Level One meaning. It did, however, convey a Chase Level Two meaning: there were strong grounds to suspect that he had accepted improper payments. The programme presented him as a significant example supporting its message that such payments were prevalent. The evidence shown did not justify a finding of guilt, but his words and demeanour, viewed in context, created a strong suspicion.
3. Individual publications. The website transcript of the original programme conveyed substantially the same meaning as the broadcast. The press release’s tentative wording did not prevent a wider inference because it repeated the relevant recorded statements and presented them within the corruption theme. The follow-up programme and its transcript also conveyed a Chase Level Two meaning. It would have been artificial for a reasonable viewer to isolate the claimant’s apparent interest in prospective payments from the wider allegation of a culture of improper payments.
4. The court indicated that further submissions would be required concerning the consequences of the findings for the statements of case and trial preparation.