Hamaiziam & Anor v The Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis

In a defamation claim, publication may be an abuse of process where the claimant cannot show a real and substantial tort and the proceedings would achieve no sufficient vindication or other legitimate advantage. The court must assess the extent of publication, the seriousness of the allegation, the prospect of repetition and the remedies realistically available.

Words stating that a person was involved in a murder do not necessarily impute guilt of murder. The ordinary reader may distinguish involvement in events leading to a murder from conviction of the offence itself. Meaning must be assessed reasonably, in context and as a whole. A claimant’s existing criminal convictions may substantially reduce recoverable damages, but they do not automatically prevent a more serious allegation from being defamatory.

The claimants, serving prisoners, sued the Metropolitan Police over an online press release headed “Three Jailed for Murder of Marvin Henry”. They alleged that the publication meant that each was a murderer and had been imprisoned for involvement in the murder.

The defendant applied for rulings on meaning and for the claim to be struck out as an abuse of process under CPR r.3.4(2)(b). The evidence showed limited intended circulation to media organisations, but the pleadings did not identify the publishees or the extent of readership. The defendant accepted that the headline was inaccurate. The issues were whether the words were capable of bearing the pleaded meanings and whether the claim should be stopped because publication, repetition and available remedies were insufficient.

1. Meaning. Applying the guidance in Jeynes v News Magazines Ltd [2008] EWCA Civ 130, the words were capable of meaning that each claimant was involved with four others in the murder of Marvin Henry and was imprisoned for such involvement. They were not capable of meaning that either claimant was guilty of murder. The press release identified McPhee and Irvani as the men convicted and sentenced for murder, while identifying the claimants’ sentences as being for grievous bodily harm and false imprisonment.
2. Abuse of process. The governing question, derived from Jameel v Dow Jones and summarised in Cammish v Hughes [2012] EWCA Civ 1655, was whether there was a real and substantial tort within the jurisdiction. Relevant considerations included the actual readership, the seriousness of the allegation, whether publication had ended, whether repetition was likely and whether a trial could provide meaningful vindication or other legitimate benefit.
3. On the material before the court, the claim would have been struck out. There was no evidence of publication to a significant readership, the inaccurate headline had been withdrawn, the material had dropped off the website and there was no real risk of repetition. However, the claimants had obtained the opportunity to amend their pleadings and adduce evidence of wider publication and republication. It was therefore premature to make the strike-out effective.
4. The claimants’ convictions for grievous bodily harm and false imprisonment did not automatically deprive them of a reputation capable of protection. An allegation of involvement in murder could be materially more serious. Nevertheless, the convictions would substantially reduce any damages, and the judgment itself provided significant vindication.
5. The court declined to determine the pleaded actual meaning at that stage. The claims were to be struck out unless amended by agreement or unless permission to amend was sought within the time specified. The words were ruled incapable of bearing the meaning that either claimant was guilty of murder, but capable of bearing the lesser pleaded meaning of involvement in the murder.