Gary Flood v Times Newspapers Ltd

Meaning is determined from the article as a whole, viewed through the eyes of the reasonable reader. A report that a person is under investigation does not, without more, allege guilt. An online archive may nevertheless convey a meaning about the position at the date when it is read, particularly where the publisher is required to update it. If a material update is absent, the publication may convey that the original grounds for suspicion or belief continue to exist. The court must assess the publication’s overall effect, including its headline, emphasis, allegations, evidence, denials and any update.

The claimant brought a libel claim concerning an article published in The Times in June 2006 and later retained on the defendant’s website. Earlier proceedings determined the scope of the defendant’s Reynolds defence, leaving claims concerning website publications read after 5 September 2007 and before an update in October 2009. The parties disputed the natural and ordinary meaning, and alleged innuendo meaning, conveyed during that period. The central issue was whether the archive publication merely reported an historical investigation or conveyed that strong grounds continued to exist for believing that the claimant had accepted bribes and committed related wrongdoing.

1. The court determined the meaning of the website publication for readers after 5 September 2007 and before the October 2009 update. It accepted the claimant’s formulation, subject to the precise wording set out in the judgment.

2. The governing principles were those summarised in Jeynes v News Magazine Ltd [2008] EWCA Civ 130. The publication had to be read as a whole, consistently with Charleston v News Group Newspapers [1995] 2 AC 65. The court considered the headline, introductory words, allegations, supporting material, denials and the presentation of the investigation.

3. The article did not allege actual guilt merely because it reported that the claimant was under investigation. The distinction recognised in Lewis v Daily Telegraph [1964] AC 234 remained important: reporting an inquiry is different from asserting reasonable grounds for it or asserting guilt.

4. However, the online publication had to be assessed as read after the relevant date. If archive material conveyed only the position at its original publication date, there would be no practical purpose in the requirement for responsible journalists to update it. The absence of the known investigation outcome meant that a reasonable reader could understand the publication as conveying that the grounds for the investigation continued to exist.

5. The words therefore conveyed that there were, and at the date of online publication continued to be, strong grounds to believe that the claimant had corruptly accepted £20,000 in bribes, abused his position, betrayed his duty and committed a very serious criminal offence.

• High Court (Queen’s Bench Division): The court had previously determined the Reynolds issue in [2009] EWHC 3275 (QB), holding that the defence succeeded for the print publication and website publication up to 5 September 2007, but failed for later website publication.
• Court of Appeal: The claimant succeeded on appeal in relation to the Reynolds defence, while the decision concerning later website publication was upheld: [2010] EWCA Civ 04; [2011] 1 WLR 153.
• Supreme Court: The defendant’s appeal was allowed in relation to publications up to 5 September 2007, restoring the High Court’s decision. The appeal concerning later website publications was withdrawn: [2012] UKSC 11; [2012] 2 AC 273.