Raffaele Mincione v Gedi Gruppo Editoriale SpA

In determining the meaning of allegedly defamatory publications, the court applies an objective standard of reasonableness. The publication must be read as a whole, in its context and having regard to its mode of publication. The hypothetical reasonable reader is neither naïve nor avid for scandal.

The Chase levels are a helpful shorthand, not a rigid classification. A meaning may fall between the recognised levels where the publication conveys a degree of suspicion between guilt and reasonable grounds for suspicion. Reporting that allegations arise from an investigation may prevent a finding of guilt as an established fact, but the confident, unqualified presentation of the allegations may still convey very strong grounds for suspicion.

The claimant brought a libel claim concerning four articles and two identical videos published by the defendant, an Italian media company. The publications concerned an investigation into Vatican finances and the claimant’s alleged role in transactions involving a London property.

This preliminary hearing determined the ordinary and natural meaning of the publications and additional innuendo meanings concerning funds donated for charitable purposes. The parties agreed that the publications were defamatory at common law, were not expressions of opinion, and that other issues were outside the preliminary determination.

1. Applicable principles. The court adopted the principles summarised in Koutsogiannis v Random House Group Ltd [2019] EWHC 48 (QB), which had been approved by the Court of Appeal in Millett v Corbyn [2021] EMLR 19. Meaning is determined objectively and by reference to the publication as a whole. The court must avoid over-elaborate or strained analysis and may select the correct single meaning, subject to the pleaded-meaning limitation.
2. Chase levels. The levels identified in Chase v Newsgroup Newspapers Ltd [2002] EWCA Civ 1772 are a helpful shorthand rather than a straitjacket. As recognised in Brown v Bower [2017] EWHC 2637 (QB), and illustrated by Charman v Orion Publishing Group Ltd [2005] EWHC 2187 (QB), the court may find a meaning between the conventional levels.
3. Articles. The First and Second Articles conveyed very strong grounds to suspect that the claimant played a leading role in corrupt and criminal plundering or stealing of Vatican assets, including Peter’s Pence funds, and was guilty of criminal offences. The Third Article conveyed reasonable grounds to suspect the claimant’s guilt of specified financial offences, but strong grounds to suspect his participation in a criminal conspiracy. Its innuendo meaning included Peter’s Pence funds reserved for charitable purposes. The Fourth Article conveyed very strong grounds to suspect that the claimant played a leading role in a criminal conspiracy diverting over €100 million, with the same charitable-funds innuendo.
4. Video. The Video conveyed reasonable grounds to suspect that the claimant dishonestly used the 60 Sloane Square transactions to misappropriate Vatican assets, including charitable funds and the Pope’s personal account, amounting to between €400 million and €500 million, for his own and others’ benefit. The word embezzlement did not accurately capture the alleged wrongdoing because the claimant was not presented as a Vatican insider.
5. The ordinary and natural meanings and the additional innuendo meanings were determined accordingly.

First-instance preliminary meaning determination. The judgment refers to an earlier Court of Appeal decision in the same litigation, [2022] EWCA Civ 557, but that decision is not the judgment under appeal in this hearing.