Chris Packham CBE v Dominic Wightman & Ors.

In a defamation claim, serious harm concerns the consequences of publication, not merely the inherent tendency of the words. It may be inferred from the circumstances, but the claimant must plead and prove the impact of each publication. A retweeter cannot rely on the total harm caused by the original tweet or other retweets.

Where dishonesty is alleged, substantial truth requires proof of the claimant’s actual and subjective state of mind. Under the public interest defence, the defendant must prove public interest, subjective belief in publication being in the public interest, and objective reasonableness. Serious allegations require proportionate investigation and, ordinarily, an opportunity for comment.

The claimant, a naturalist and campaigner, sued three defendants over articles, videos and social-media publications accusing him of dishonest fundraising, concealing insurance, and lying about peat burning during Muirburns.

The first and second defendants relied on truth and publication on a matter of public interest. The third defendant denied responsibility for some articles and disputed serious harm from his retweets. The court also considered whether limited proofreading made the third defendant an editor under the Defamation Act 1996.

The central issues were whether the publications caused serious harm, whether the statutory defences were established, and whether the third defendant was legally responsible for the relevant publications.

1. Claims against the first and second defendants. The claimant established defamation and serious harm. The truth defence failed. In allegations of dishonesty, the defendants had to prove the claimant’s actual and subjective state of knowledge or belief. The claimant genuinely and reasonably believed that the tigers formed part of a chain of rescue and had suffered mistreatment. The defendants’ evidence did not establish fraud or dishonesty.
2. The public interest defence under section 4 of the Defamation Act 2013 failed. Although the publications concerned matters of public interest and the defendants genuinely believed publication was in the public interest in relation to the Circus Big Cats Allegation, they did not show that their belief was reasonable. Their approach was driven by an agenda, lacked adequate investigation, and involved no opportunity for the claimant to comment. The Insurance and Muirburn allegations also failed for lack of proper investigation and reasonable belief.
3. Claims against the third defendant. Proofreading and tidying copy did not amount to editorial or equivalent responsibility for content or the decision to publish under section 1(2) of the Defamation Act 1996. The claims concerning the first to fourth articles were dismissed.
4. The court declined to decide whether retweeting made the third defendant an author or editor because the claims failed on serious harm. Serious harm had to be established for each retweet. The claimant could not rely on the circulation or impact of the original tweets or other retweets. The number of followers did not reliably establish impact, and the evidence did not identify harm attributable to the third defendant’s retweets.
5. Judgment was entered for the claimant against the first and second defendants for £90,000, comprising £75,000 for the Circus Big Cats Allegation, £10,000 for the Insurance Allegation and £5,000 for the Muirburn Allegation. The claims against the third defendant were dismissed. Further argument was directed on additional relief and costs.