RAFFAELE MINCIONE v RIZZOLI CORRIERE DELLA SERA MEDIA GROUP SPA & Ors

In an English defamation claim, the public interest defence under section 4 of the Defamation Act 2013 is assessed primarily by reference to English law and standards applicable to publication in England and Wales. Foreign law and journalistic practice may be relevant where they bear directly on an issue such as the confidentiality of an investigation, but foreign remedies and hypothetical foreign claims are generally irrelevant. Expert evidence must be limited to matters genuinely in issue and reasonably required to resolve the proceedings. Evidence of undisputed, anecdotal journalistic practice is not ordinarily expert evidence, particularly where the court must assess conduct against English standards.

The claimant brought an English defamation claim concerning two articles published by an Italian newspaper and its journalists. The meanings were agreed to be defamatory, but serious harm and the statutory public interest defence under section 4 of the Defamation Act 2013 remained in issue.

The defendants sought permission to rely on expert evidence concerning Italian and Vatican law, Italian causes of action and remedies, Italian journalistic practice, and mediation practice. The central issue was whether those matters were relevant and proportionate to the issues for trial in England.

1. Permission partly granted. Permission was granted on a provisional and limited basis for expert evidence concerning the status under Italian law of the Rome investigation and entries in the Registro delle notizie di reato, specifically whether they were private or confidential.
2. The public interest defence under section 4 of the Defamation Act 2013 required the court to consider all the circumstances. Its perspective was nevertheless primarily English because the claim concerned publication in England and Wales. The court adopted the approaches in Weller v Associated Newspapers Ltd [2014] EWHC 1163 (QB) and HRH The Duchess of Sussex v Associated Newspapers Ltd [2021] EWHC 273 (Ch).
3. Foreign remedies and the hypothetical availability or merits of a claim in Italy were irrelevant, or at least disproportionate, to the English claim. If information was confidential in Italy, that fact could be relevant to the public interest defence; the remedies available for disclosure were not.
4. Expert evidence about Italian journalistic practice and mediation practice was refused. The alleged practices were undisputed, the defendants could give factual evidence about them, and no formal objective standards were identified. Any expert evidence would be patchy and anecdotal, while the relevant scrutiny was by reference to English law and standards.
5. Under CPR rule 35.1, expert evidence had to be reasonably required to resolve the proceedings and proportionate to the matters in issue. The court referred to the three-stage test in British Airways Plc v Spencer [2015] EWHC 2477 (Ch). The defendants were directed to clarify their pleaded case on the status of the investigation and Register. The proposed expert, Mr Giuliano, was found suitably qualified.

First-instance decision on an application for permission to rely on expert evidence. No appellate history was stated.