Sooben v Badal

A publisher is liable for the defamatory meaning conveyed by publishing another person’s allegations. Repetition of an allegation does not permit reliance on a defence of justification by proving only that someone else made it.

Under the former Reynolds privilege, the publication must concern a matter of sufficient public interest, the particular defamatory material must reasonably contribute to the story, and the publisher must have acted responsibly. The seriousness of an allegation may require verification and an opportunity for response. Volunteer or amateur status may be relevant, but does not remove the minimum standard of responsible journalism.

The claimant, a solicitor, sued the editor of Mauritius Now over an article reporting an interview in which a third party alleged that he had attempted to procure false evidence and thereby procure another person to commit perjury.

The claim was tried after the claimant’s proposed joinder of the publisher and interviewee was refused. The defendant initially pleaded justification, fair comment and Reynolds privilege, but abandoned justification at trial and did not pursue fair comment. The issues were the meaning of the words, whether the publication was protected by the former common-law privilege, and damages.

1. Meaning and repetition. The words meant that the claimant had attempted to procure evidence he knew to be false for use in his legal case and was therefore guilty of attempting to procure another person to commit perjury. They did not allege that he had himself committed perjury. The defendant was responsible for the defamatory meaning conveyed by republishing the interview, notwithstanding that the allegation originated with the interviewee. A defendant cannot establish justification merely by proving that another person made the allegation.
2. Public interest. The article’s general subject, including the interviewee’s conviction for illegally providing immigration advice and services, was a matter of sufficient public interest. Local and community matters may qualify. However, the perjury allegation was tangential, exceptionally serious and gratuitous. It made no real contribution to the public-interest element of the article and was not protected by Reynolds privilege.
3. Responsible journalism. The court would in any event have rejected the privilege. The relevant factors were not to be applied mechanically. The allegation was serious, disputed, untested and based on a single source with an evident risk of animosity. The defendant took no proper steps to verify it, failed to contact the claimant, and omitted the claimant’s known response. The absence of urgency increased the need to obtain his account. The article’s interview format did not cure its lack of balance. A volunteer editor’s status was relevant but could not reduce the minimum standard required to obtain the privilege.
4. Damages. Damages serve reputation, vindication and compensation for distress. Gravity and extent of publication were primary considerations, with account also taken of the grape-vine effect, the defendant’s conduct up to judgment, mitigation and the relatively limited circulation. Judgment was entered for the claimant in the sum of £70,000.