Raphael Berg v Owen Jones

In determining meaning and related issues in a libel claim, the court must assess the publication objectively and holistically, by reference to the natural and ordinary meaning conveyed to the hypothetical ordinary reasonable reader. The article must be read as a whole, and context may show that repeated allegations have been adopted, endorsed, repudiated or discounted.

An allegation based on a body of published work, particularly on a polarising subject, is capable of being opinion where the reader is given sufficient material to form a view. The statutory conditions for honest opinion concern the statement complained of, rather than the meaning or imputation conveyed by it. A statement may be defamatory at common law where it attributes conduct or views contrary to common shared views and would have a substantially adverse effect on how the claimant is treated.

This was a libel claim concerning an article published on the Drop Site News website about the BBC’s coverage of the Israel-Palestine conflict. The claimant, the BBC’s Middle East Editor for online news, alleged that the publication accused him of deliberately and knowingly breaching duties of accuracy and impartiality. The defendant contended that the article conveyed a less serious allegation of bias and editorial failure, expressed as opinion.

Following an order for preliminary issues, the court determined the natural and ordinary meaning, whether the meaning was defamatory at common law, whether the statement complained of was fact or opinion, and whether the basis of any opinion was indicated.

1. Meaning. The article was to be read as a whole and assessed by the hypothetical ordinary reasonable reader. The reader would understand that the claimant was accused of taking an active editorial role in producing biased and imbalanced coverage favouring Israel. The article did not convey that he knowingly distorted coverage or deliberately breached editorial standards. The meaning was that the claimant, in a senior editorial role and as a writer, had consistently failed to meet BBC standards of impartiality and fairness by shaping coverage to favour Israel, including by promoting Israeli government narratives and failing to humanise Palestinians killed or injured in the conflict.
2. Opinion. The central allegation, and the specific allegations concerning prominence, emphasis and framing, were statements of opinion. They were based on the claimant’s editing and writing, examples of which were given to the reader. The subject was inherently polarising and the published work naturally invited comment. Those features enabled the reader to form an independent view.
3. Defamatory meaning. The meaning was defamatory at common law because it attributed views or conduct contrary to common shared views and would tend to have a substantially adverse effect on the way people treated the claimant.
4. Honest opinion conditions. Section 3(2) and (3) of the Defamation Act 2013 refer to the “statement complained of”, not the meaning or imputation conveyed by it. The statement sufficiently indicated, in general terms and sometimes by specific examples, the basis of the opinion: the BBC’s coverage and the claimant’s own reporting.
5. The court therefore determined the preliminary issues in accordance with those findings. It was immaterial whether the article was read with or without its introduction.