Elphicke v Times Newspapers Ltd

In determining the natural and ordinary meaning of allegedly defamatory articles, the court must read each publication as a whole and assess the impression conveyed to the hypothetical reasonable reader. Context, including headlines, surrounding material, mode of publication, allegations, denials and any bane and antidote, must be considered together. The court is not confined to the meanings advanced by the parties, subject to the pleaded meaning limit.

Reporting an allegation does not necessarily convey guilt. Where the publication criticises the handling of an allegation, the reasonable reader may understand it as conveying reasonable grounds for suspicion rather than guilt or merely grounds for investigation. The articles here conveyed a Chase level 2 meaning.

The claimant, a Member of Parliament, brought claims for misuse of private information and libel arising from three Sunday Times articles concerning allegations of sexual offences. The preliminary issue concerned the natural and ordinary meaning of the words complained of in the second and third articles.

The claimant contended that the articles meant he was guilty of rape. The defendant contended that they conveyed only that there were grounds to investigate whether he had committed rape. The central issue was whether the articles conveyed guilt, reasonable grounds for suspicion, or merely grounds for investigation.

1. Outcome. The court determined that the words complained of in both articles conveyed that there were reasonable grounds to suspect the claimant of rape. The articles did not convey that he was guilty of rape, and they conveyed more than merely that the matter warranted investigation.
2. The natural and ordinary meaning was assessed in accordance with the principles summarised in Koutsogiannis v Random House Group [2019] EWHC 48 (QB). The governing principle was reasonableness. The publications had to be read as a whole, taking account of their context and mode of publication. The hypothetical reader was neither naive nor avid for scandal. The court had to consider the combined effect of the defamatory material and any potentially mitigating material.
3. The court applied the categorisation in Chase v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2002] EWCA Civ 1772, [2003] EMLR 11. The relevant levels were guilt, reasonable grounds to suspect guilt, and grounds for investigation, although the categories were not rigid and the court was not bound by the parties’ formulations.
4. The articles’ criticism of the police assumed that the complaint should not have been dismissed without obtaining the claimant’s response. The signed witness statement, the support given by a Conservative Party whip, and the surrounding reporting conveyed that the complaint had an objective basis. The claimant’s general denial was not deprived of meaning merely because it was not expressed as a specific denial of rape. The references to allegations and claims, read in context, did not amount to an allegation of guilt.
5. The court directed that the meaning of the words complained of in both relevant paragraphs of the Particulars of Claim was that there were reasonable grounds to suspect that the claimant was guilty of rape.