Dating, Defamation & Deputy Assistant Director!

Kevin Modiri

In a recent defamation case, the Deputy Assistant Director of Children’s Safeguarding and Head of Services for Children in Need of Support and Protection for Haringey Council rather foolishly decided to send sexually explicit messages to a man she had been messaging on the dating website Plenty of Fish. To make matters worse, she sent those messages from the toilets at her place of work.

Carruthers v News Group Newspapers Ltd

Background

The man that she had been messaging (for whatever reason) decided to bring the messages to the attention of The Sun and The Mail Online, who subsequently published the following headlines:

‘Council boss in charge of protecting vulnerable children at Baby P authority sends sexual pics from office toilets to man she met on Plenty of Fish’

‘A MANAGER in charge of safeguarding vulnerable children for the Baby P scandal council has been sending intimate photos from its offices,’ and

‘SCANDAL OF KIDS’ CHIEF… BABY P COUNCIL BOSS’S SEX PICS IN OFFICE’

The articles also exhibited photographs of the Claimant and the child known as ‘Baby P’ and made reference to Haringey Council being responsible for various child protection failures.

The Claimant brought claims against the newspaper publishers for:

The Claimant argued that the articles conveyed a defamatory meaning by suggesting that she had been involved in various child protection cases and that she did not perform her role effectively enough.

The matter proceeded to a preliminary issue hearing on the meaning that could be affixed to the articles. The Defendants further applied for summary judgment alleging that the Claimant lacked prospects of success.

Judgment

The Court found that the ordinary reasonable reader, when they considered the whole article, could not have reached the conclusion that the Claimant had anything to do with the child protection cases referred to and, further, that the only meanings that could be taken from the articles were:

  1. That the Claimant sent sexual messages of herself to a person that she had met online whilst at work; and
  2. That such behaviour of a senior member of Haringey Council’s team was inappropriate and unprofessional behaviour.

One of the articles conveyed that the Claimant’s actions were worthy of disciplinary action by her employer with a view to her being dismissed. The Court found this to be a potentially defamatory expression of opinion by the Defendant.

As the Defendants in this case deployed the defence of honest opinion, the Court found:

  1. The first condition of that defence was satisfied by the Court’s finding that the only defamatory meaning was in the context of an expression of an opinion;
  2. That the reasonable reader could, having read the whole article, have reached the same opinion; and
  3. Accordingly, that the Claimant had no real prospect of defeating the honest opinion defence.

The misuse of private information and data protection arguments survived this hearing and are the subject of on-going litigation.

How Can Nelsons Help?

Kevin ModiriCarruthers v News Group Newspapers is a Partner in our Dispute Resolution team.

Should you be affected by defamatory statement whether posted online or in a newspaper, it is essential that advice is sought as early as possible not least because there are strict time limits in claims of this type. If you are affected by defamatory comments, please contact a member of our team on 0800 024 1976 or via our online form.

Contact us today

We're here to help.

Call us on 0800 024 1976

Main Contact Form

Used on contact page

  • Email us