Burgon MP v News Group Newspapers Ltd & Anor

In determining the meaning of allegedly defamatory words, the court must consider the publication as a whole from the viewpoint of the hypothetical reasonable reader and identify its single broad impression. Serious harm under section 1 of the Defamation Act 2013 is a question of fact; injury to feelings alone is insufficient. A publication presented as opinion may affect the assessment of serious harm, but a factual imputation cannot rely on the defence of honest opinion. The public-interest defence requires responsible journalism in relation to the statement actually published. A publisher may retain an opinion after receiving corrective information, but must deal fairly with that information. Honest conduct defeats malicious falsehood where malice requires dishonesty.

The claimant, a Member of Parliament and Shadow Secretary of State for Justice, sued the publishers of the Sun and its political editor over an online article stating that he had joined a heavy metal band which knowingly took great pleasure in using Nazi symbols. He claimed libel, malicious falsehood and breach of statutory duty under the Data Protection Act 1998.

The defendants denied serious harm and relied on truth, honest opinion and public interest under the Defamation Act 2013. The court determined the meaning of the online article, serious harm, the statutory defences, malicious falsehood and whether the data-protection claim added anything to the successful libel claim.

1. Meaning. The online article meant that the claimant had joined a band which, as he knew, took great pleasure in using Nazi symbols. It also conveyed the opinion that he had made a terrible misjudgment. It did not impute sympathy with Nazi beliefs. The meaning was assessed by reading the article as a whole, including its qualifying material, applying Jeynes v News Magazines Ltd [2008] EWCA Civ 130, Waterson v Lloyd [2013] EWCA Civ 136 and Doyle v Smith [2018] EWHC 2935 (QB).
2. Serious harm. The imputation was defamatory because it would adversely affect the attitude of others towards the claimant. Publication to thousands of readers established serious harm by inevitable inference, and no evidence rebutted that inference. Injury to feelings alone would not have sufficed: Lachaux v Independent Print Ltd [2018] QB 594 and Economou v De Freitas [2018] EWCA Civ 2591.
3. Defences. Truth failed. The claimant had made only a guest appearance, the band did not take great pleasure in using Nazi symbols, and the stylised letters were not Nazi symbols. Honest opinion failed because the principal imputation was factual and therefore did not satisfy section 3(2). The public-interest defence failed because, after being told that the image derived from a Black Sabbath album cover, the defendants omitted that material information from the online article. Responsible journalism required the information to be included, although the defendants were entitled to maintain their opinion and were not required to contact the band.
4. Other claims and remedy. The malicious-falsehood claim failed because the political editor acted honestly, although the article was false. The data-protection claim was not separately determined because it added nothing to the successful libel claim. The claimant received £30,000 damages and an injunction restraining further publication.