Hamilton v News Group Newspapers Ltd

In determining the natural and ordinary meaning of allegedly defamatory publications, the court must read the words as a whole from the perspective of the ordinary, reasonable reader. A reported allegation will ordinarily bear the same meaning as a direct allegation under the repetition rule. That starting point may be altered by the article’s overall impression if sufficiently strong qualifying material provides an antidote. The court is not confined to the meanings advanced by the parties or to the Chase levels, although it should normally remain within the same class or range. Meaning is assessed without extraneous material and by avoiding over-elaborate analysis.

The claimant, a former prison officer, sued the publisher of The Sun for libel and misuse of private information over print and online articles alleging that she had engaged in an inappropriate relationship with a prisoner. By consent, the natural and ordinary meaning of the publications was ordered to be determined as a preliminary issue without an oral hearing.

The parties advanced differing meanings concerning an alleged sexual or inappropriate relationship, possible criminality and the gravity of the conduct. The central issues were whether the articles conveyed a sexual relationship, criminal conduct or serious misconduct, and how the repetition rule affected the meaning.

1. Paper determination. The court was entitled to determine the preliminary issue without a hearing. The decision was consistent with the overriding objective, active case management, efficiency, economy, speed and the parties’ wishes. Transparency and open justice could be protected by written submissions, a draft judgment, circulation to the parties and making the relevant materials available at hand-down.
2. Approach to meaning. The words were to be read once, as a whole, by an ordinary, reasonable reader of The Sun, adopting an approach between undue naivety and avidity for scandal. The court applied the familiar principles summarised in Koutsogiannis v The Random House Group Ltd [2019] EWHC 48 (QB).
3. Repetition rule. The report of an allegation ordinarily bears the same meaning as a direct allegation. Reporting that others had made allegations did not prevent the publications from conveying the misconduct alleged. The overall impression remained decisive. The claimant’s denials and references to an investigation did not provide a sufficient antidote, because the articles conveyed that the allegations were true and that her resignation had avoided adverse proceedings.
4. Meaning conveyed. The articles suggested an emotional and physical relationship, but did not clearly convey sexual intercourse or criminality. They conveyed serious misconduct by the claimant in her role as a prison officer. The natural and ordinary meaning was: the claimant committed serious misconduct in her role as a prison officer by engaging in an emotional and physical relationship with an inmate.
5. The meaning was different from those advanced by either party but remained within the same range. The court was not bound to adopt a Chase level and could determine a different meaning where appropriate.
6. The parties were directed to address by written submissions any amendment, costs and further directions.