Sheikh v Associated Newspapers Ltd

In determining meaning at a libel preliminary issue, the court must assess objectively the broad impression conveyed by the publication to the ordinary reasonable reader, taking account of its words, images, context and publishing platform. Natural and ordinary meaning includes inferential meaning, but an innuendo meaning requires pleading and proof of special extraneous knowledge. Chase levels are a useful classification, not a straitjacket. A publication may convey an implied factual allegation without conveying an implied opinion. Association with people holding reprehensible views does not automatically impute adoption of those views. The court should avoid elaborate textual analysis and identify the overall message conveyed by the publication as a whole.

Lord Sheikh brought a libel claim concerning an article published on the Mail Online website. The article described his attendance at events and associations with individuals and organisations said to hold anti-Semitic or other extremist views. It included photographs, captions and a reader comment.

By consent, the Senior Master directed a trial of two preliminary issues: the meanings conveyed by the words and images, and whether those meanings were statements of fact or expressions of opinion. The claimant alleged that the publication meant that he supported anti-Semitism, Holocaust denial, violent Islamist jihad, terrorism and hate preaching. The defendant contended for a lesser meaning involving irresponsible or uncritical association giving reasonable grounds for suspicion and investigation.

1. Meaning. The court found that the article and photographs conveyed that the claimant had a long history of support for, or close association with, people and organisations expressing anti-Semitic and other extremist views. Those associations, despite his explanations, provided strong grounds for suspecting that he secretly approved of and sympathised with those views and was prepared knowingly and actively to support them. The article also conveyed that the situation was shocking and disturbing. The reader comment conveyed that the claimant was a hate-filled idiot unfit to be a Member of Parliament.
2. Natural and ordinary meaning. The assessment was objective and concerned the broad impression made on the ordinary reasonable reader by the publication as a whole. Context included the Mail Online platform, the article’s structure, the photographs, the repeated reference to “rubbing shoulders”, the calls for an investigation, and the closing passages containing the claimant’s explanations and denials.
3. Innuendo. The special meaning alleged for “fellow traveller” did not produce a different meaning. Even a reader familiar with that expression would understand it in the context as reinforcing an allegation of close association, rather than active and knowing support.
4. Fact and opinion. The principal imputation was a statement of fact, although inferentially conveyed. The conclusions that the article was shocking and disturbing, and the reader comment, were opinions. The article did not contain an implied opinion that the claimant had been uncritical or insufficiently vigilant. “Rubbing shoulders with” conveyed conduct and association, not evaluation.
5. Association. Association with a person portrayed as holding or being associated with extreme views did not automatically establish guilt of the same wrongdoing. The article went beyond grounds for investigation because of the accumulation of examples, but it stopped short of directly alleging that the claimant himself had expressed the views in question.