Stephen Belafonte v News Group Newspapers Limited

In determining the natural and ordinary meaning of allegedly defamatory words, the court must consider the publication as a whole from the perspective of the hypothetical ordinary reasonable reader. Context, genre, headline and presentation are important, and over-analysis must be avoided. The repetition rule does not operate mechanically: reporting an allegation does not automatically convey guilt, because the context may make the allegation provisional or may signal that it is not adopted. Factual allegations may fall on a spectrum between guilt, reasonable suspicion and grounds for investigation. A reader may draw broad, impressionistic inferences, but the court must reject meanings that are strained, forced or avid for scandal.

Mr Stephen Belafonte brought a libel claim against the publisher of The Sun concerning an article about allegations made by his former wife, Mel B. The article reported that she remained fearful of him, referred to a restraining order in the United States, and described alleged incidents involving a drone and service of legal proceedings during a visit to the United Kingdom.

The parties agreed that the article contained factual allegations and was defamatory at common law. The preliminary issue was its single natural and ordinary meaning. The claimant alleged imputations of guilt, including harassment in the United States and the United Kingdom. The defendant contended for meanings at the levels of suspicion or grounds for investigation.

1. Meaning of the article. The article was to be read as a brief item of celebrity gossip, quickly and impressionistically, rather than through detailed forensic analysis. Its overall message was that Ms Brown lived in fear of Mr Belafonte and had cause to do so.
2. United States allegation. In context, the reference to the current restraining order and the historical allegations conveyed that Mr Belafonte had harassed Ms Brown in the United States. This was a Chase level 1 imputation of guilt. The alleged misconduct was understood generically as unwanted, persistent, intimidating or intrusive behaviour, rather than by reference to technical legal distinctions.
3. United Kingdom allegation. The references to the drone, the process-server, Mr Belafonte’s presence in the country and the absence of a restraining order in the United Kingdom gave grounds to suspect that he was responsible for the incidents and was continuing to harass Ms Brown. This was a Chase level 2 meaning as to responsibility for the incidents and a level 3 meaning as to continuing harassment. The article was provisional and did not straightforwardly attribute guilt.
4. The repetition rule applied to the reported allegations, but context prevented its mechanical application. The article did not convey that Mr Belafonte had cynically exploited his daughter’s visit; that meaning was an unwarranted extrapolation.
5. The court therefore found the pleaded defamatory meanings set out in paragraph 41 and determined the preliminary issue accordingly.

First-instance determination of a preliminary defamation issue following trial.