Kneafsey & Ors v Independent Television News Ltd & Ors

A defendant may obtain summary judgment in a defamation claim where the claimant has no realistic prospect of defeating an intimated defence and no compelling reason requires a trial. The court may assess the available evidence without conducting a mini-trial, while respecting the claimant’s right to jury determination of genuinely contestable facts.

For the Reynolds defence, the publication must concern a matter of public interest and the steps taken to gather, verify and publish the information must have been responsible and fair. On a meaning application, the court determines only the range of meanings reasonably available, not the actual meaning. A reasonable viewer will not infer dishonesty or conspiracy merely because a tribunal rejected an explanation.

Six serving Metropolitan Police officers brought libel proceedings against Independent Television News Ltd, Channel Four Television Corporation and a journalist concerning a televised report about their arrest of a suspect and subsequent disciplinary proceedings. They alleged that the report conveyed that they had dishonestly conspired to mislead the disciplinary tribunal by giving false evidence about intelligence concerning the suspect.

The defendants applied for strike-out, summary judgment, and a ruling that the words were incapable of bearing the pleaded meaning. No defence had been served. The central issues were whether the claim had a real prospect of defeating the proposed Reynolds defence, whether the publication caused more than minimal additional reputational damage, and what defamatory meanings the words were capable of bearing.

1. Summary judgment. Judgment was entered for the defendants on the whole claim under CPR r24. The court had to assess the real prospects of success on the information available, without assuming that pleaded facts would be proved or drawing an adverse inference merely from the claimants’ failure to file evidence. The evidence did not present a genuine conflict requiring a trial. The claimants had no real prospect of defeating the intimated Reynolds defence.
2. The broadcast was consistent with the briefing note recording that the allegation that the suspect was armed or had threatened an officer had been investigated and unsupported. The claimants also had no real prospect of denying, or being believed if they denied, that at an earlier stage they had relied on intelligence that the suspect had a history of carrying weapons and using violence towards police officers. The distinction between that earlier position and the evidence ultimately advanced at the misconduct hearing was too small to support more than minimal damages.
3. The same conclusion followed from the limited likely additional publication and the reputational damage already resulting from the finding of discreditable conduct. The statutory qualified-privilege defence and abuse-of-process application therefore did not require separate determination.
4. Meaning. Applying the principles in Jeynes v News Magazines Ltd [2008] EWCA Civ 130, the court could rule on the range of permissible meanings but not the actual meaning reserved for the jury. The words were capable of referring to the misconduct hearing and of conveying that the claimants might have advanced false or misleading evidence, or had been culpably mistaken. They were incapable of conveying that the claimants had in fact lied or conspired. The tentative wording and the broadcast as a whole prevented that higher meaning.
5. The claimants’ pleaded meaning was therefore outside the permissible range. Judgment was entered for the defendants on the whole claim.

First-instance decision. No prior appellate history is stated in the judgment.