John Alexander Melvin Hemming v Sonia Vanessa Poulton

In a trial of preliminary issues on meaning, the court must determine the single natural and ordinary meaning conveyed to the hypothetical reasonable reader, considering the publication as a whole, its context and mode of publication. The repetition rule is not mechanical: reporting an allegation may convey that the allegation was made without necessarily conveying its truth, depending on the overall context. Serious allegations do not automatically carry the highest Chase level; the relevant question is the degree of certainty expressed about guilt. An innuendo meaning depends on the meaning conveyed to a reasonable person possessing the relevant extrinsic facts. The court found one limb of Publication 1 defamatory, while the second limb was not, and found all three limbs of Publication 5 defamatory.

The claimant, a former MP, brought libel proceedings against the defendant journalist concerning two online publications. A trial of preliminary issues was ordered to determine their natural and ordinary and/or innuendo meanings and whether those meanings were defamatory at common law. Issues of reference concerning Publication 5 had been struck out and were not determined at the hearing.

Publication 1 was part of a podcast discussion concerning allegations of child abuse by public figures. Publication 5 appeared on the defendant’s fundraising page and referred to police enquiries, alleged pressure on public authorities, and people seeking to prevent her reporting on child abuse. The central issues were the meanings conveyed by each publication and their defamatory character.

1. Publication 1. The court approached meaning by first considering the impression made on the hypothetical reasonable viewer and then applying the legal principles governing natural and ordinary meaning. The relevant audience was interested in online material concerning allegations of abuse and abuses of power, but was not to be treated as avid for scandal or as naïve.
2. The publication conveyed that Esther Baker had made public allegations of child abuse by an MP, that John Hemming had revealed the allegations concerned him, and that Baker must feel they had not been thoroughly investigated. It also conveyed that Hemming was highly proactive in protecting his reputation, including by legal threats. The first limb was defamatory at common law. The second was not, because interpreting the threats as baseless or as an attempt to conceal sexual misconduct would be strained.
3. The court rejected the contention that the seriousness of the underlying allegations necessarily required a Chase level 1 meaning. The qualifications, hesitation and wider context meant that the allegation conveyed grounds for investigating whether Hemming was responsible for child abuse, corresponding to level 3. The defendant’s use of caveats such as allegedly did not prevent the repetition rule from applying, but the surrounding context moderated the sting.
4. Publication 5. The natural and ordinary and innuendo meanings were that improper pressure by powerful interested parties had led to the police interview; that the defendant had given their names to the police and they used harassment and defamation to silence those reporting child abuse; and, by innuendo, that their motives in covering up abuse by Establishment members might include concealing their own criminal activities. The first two limbs were factual and the third was opinion.
5. The court treated the third limb as conveying a level 3 allegation requiring investigation. The relevant extrinsic facts included the widely reported allegations concerning Baker and Hemming and the related defamation proceedings. All three limbs of Publication 5 were defamatory at common law. No determination was made on possible defences. Costs were ordered to be costs in the case.