The two claimants, each convicted of serious offences of false imprisonment and violent assault, complained of a press release issued by the defendant which, they said accused them of involvement in a murder.
Held: The words complained of did not mean that either of the claimants was a murderer, despite the headline ‘Three jailed for murder of Marvin Henry’. That is because the text of the press release makes it quite clear that neither of the claimants was jailed for murder, and it would be clear from the body of the press release that neither of them was involved in the murder in the sense of being convicted of murder, which would be what most normal people would understand by involvement in murder, but at the same time, it (rightly) states that the two murderers, McPhee and Irvani, were also convicted of false imprisonment and grievous bodily harm, the same offences as these claimants and the other man convicted, Faley. ‘I therefore conclude that the meaning of the words complained of is that the claimants were each jailed for a total of six years’ imprisonment for offences of grievous bodily harm and false imprisonment, committed in the course of their involvement in the lead-up to the murder of Marvin Henry.’
Richard Parkes QC HHJ
[2014] EWHC 3408 (QB)
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Slim v Daily Telegraph Ltd CA 1968
Courts to Settle upon a single meaning if disputed
The ‘single meaning’ rule adopted in the law of defamation is in one sense highly artificial, given the range of meanings the impugned words sometimes bear. The law of defamation ‘has passed beyond redemption by the courts’. Where in a libel action . .
Cited – Jeynes v News Magazines Ltd and Another CA 31-Jan-2008
Whether Statement defamatory at common law
The claimant appealed against a striking out of her claim for defamation on finding that the words did not have the defamatory meaning complained of, namely that she was transgendered or transsexual.
Held: The appeal failed.
Sir Anthony . .
Cited – Charleston and Another v News Group Newspapers Ltd and Another HL 31-Mar-1995
The plaintiffs were actors playing Harold and Madge Bishop in the Australian soap series ‘Neighbours’. They sued on a tabloid newspaper article which showed their faces superimposed on the near-naked bodies of models apparently engaged in sexual . .
Cited – John v Guardian News and Media Ltd QBD 12-Dec-2008
The court is entitled to take account of the nature of the hypothetical reasonable reader, in this case the ‘educated readership’ of the Guardian Weekend section, when deciding the impied meanings in a statement said to be defamatory. Tugendhat J . .
Cited – McAlpine v Bercow QBD 2014
The claimant alleged defamation by the defendant in making a false allegation against him.
Held: The second Jeynes principle does not mean that the court must always choose the least defamatory meaning available. Where there are two possible . .
Cited – Johnston v League Publications Ltd and Others QBD 26-Mar-2014
Application to determine meanings.
Held: When asked to determine the meanings in a statement alleged to be defamatory, the court is not restricted to the meaning put forward by the parties: ‘The test is that of the ‘ordinary reader’. That . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Defamation
Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.537779
