Ware v Paddy French

In determining the meaning of allegedly defamatory political journalism, the court must assess the article as a whole and from the perspective of the ordinary reasonable reader. Political context may justify allowance for passionate and imprecise language, but it does not prevent allegations of deliberate wrongdoing from conveying statements of fact. A serious accusation that a journalist knowingly presented a false and selective account is not reduced to opinion merely because it appears in political commentary. Meaning and the distinction between fact and opinion are interrelated and may properly be considered together. An allegation that a journalist engaged in rogue journalism, by deliberately suppressing contrary evidence and misrepresenting material, is capable of being defamatory at common law.

This was a trial of preliminary issues in a libel claim brought by John Ware against Paddy French concerning an article published in or around December 2019. The article criticised a Panorama programme presented and produced by Mr Ware concerning antisemitism in the Labour Party.

The issues were the natural and ordinary meaning of the article, whether the meaning conveyed fact or opinion, and whether it was defamatory at common law. The court also considered the significance of the article’s political context, headline and strapline.

1. Meaning. The article conveyed that Mr Ware was a rogue journalist who had engaged in dirty tricks aimed at harming the Labour Party’s electoral prospects by authoring and presenting a Panorama programme which gave a biased and knowingly false presentation of the extent and nature of antisemitism within the party, while deliberately ignoring contrary evidence. The meaning was assessed by overall impression, without a surgical dissection of the article. The headline and strapline formed part of the reading experience and supported the reference to dirty tricks and damage to electoral prospects.
2. Political context. The article concerned serious political journalism on an issue of public interest. Political discourse may be passionate and less precise than financial journalism, and over-analysis should be avoided. That context did not prevent the article from going beyond general criticism or one-sided political commentary. It accused the claimant of deliberate wrongdoing and knowingly false presentation.
3. Fact and opinion. The allegations that Mr Ware misrepresented material by presenting one side of the story for a particular purpose and deliberately suppressed an alternative narrative were imputations of fact. The accusation of rogue journalism was also an imputation of fact. Readers were not taken to have inferred that description merely from the existence of a one-sided programme; the article expressly conveyed the accusation and set out supporting material.
4. Defamatory tendency. Accusing a broadcast journalist of the conduct alleged was plainly defamatory at common law because it substantially affected, or tended substantially to affect, the attitude of others towards his reputation.
5. The preliminary issues were determined accordingly. The judgment did not finally determine the full claim, including publication scale or any later trial issues.

First-instance determination of preliminary issues. The judgment does not state any prior appellate decision.