The recent High Court decision in Pearson v Chief Constable of Essex Police and another [2026] EWHC 961 (KB) provides a timely and important reminder of the fine line between reporting an investigation and publishing something defamatory.
For individuals and businesses alike, the case raises a critical question: when does a public statement about an investigation cross the line into reputational harm?
The background
The claim was brought by journalist Allison Pearson against Essex Police and the Police, Fire and Crime Commissioner following a series of public statements and media comments relating to a police investigation into an allegation of inciting racial hatred.
The Court was asked to determine the natural and ordinary meaning of those statements and whether they were defamatory at common law; a crucial early step in any libel claim.
The legal framework: how courts assess meaning
The judgment provides a helpful refresher on the principles applied when determining defamatory meaning.
Mr Justice Chamberlain reiterated that the Court must identify the single meaning the words would convey to the ordinary reader:
“The court’s task is to determine the natural and ordinary meaning of the words complained of… the single meaning the words would convey to the hypothetical ordinary reasonable reader.”
Importantly, that meaning is assessed objectively:
“The meaning is to be determined objectively… The author’s intention is irrelevant.”
This is often a difficult hurdle in defamation cases. What a publisher meant is far less important than what the reader understood.
The significance of “Chase levels”
A central feature of the case is the concept of “Chase levels”, which categorise the seriousness of defamatory imputations:
- Level 1 – an allegation that the claimant committed the act;
- Level 2 – reasonable grounds to suspect that the claimant committed the act; and
- Level 3 – grounds to investigate that the claimant committed the act.
As set out in the judgment:
“The sting of a libel may be capable of meaning that a claimant has in fact committed some serious act… [or] that there are grounds for investigating whether he/she has been responsible.”
This distinction is crucial. A statement suggesting someone is merely under investigation is less serious, but can still be defamatory.
What did the Court decide?
- Statements about an investigation can still be defamatory
The Court found that Mr Hirst’s article in Conservative Home and his comments in his interview conveyed that:
“there were grounds to investigate…for an alleged offence of inciting racial hatred”.
This was categorised as Chase Level 3, meaning there were grounds to investigate and this was sufficient to have a defamatory meaning.
This underlines an important point:
Even implying that someone is being investigated can damage their reputation.
- Context matters and so does tone
The Court emphasised that the ordinary reader understands police investigations as part of routine procedure:
“the police investigate these…before deciding whether to proceed to take any further action”.
Because of this, the statements did not suggest guilt or even suspicion of guilt, only an investigation.
However, that did not prevent them from having a defamatory meaning.
- A “no further action” statement can repair reputational harm
A key turning point in the case was the later statement by the police confirming that no action would be taken.
The Court held that this acted as a complete corrective step in respect of the allegations pursued against the police:
“no further action… was a complete antidote to the imputation in the earlier statements”.
As a result, that later publication was not defamatory.
This highlights the importance of issuing prompt and clear corrections if allegations are withdrawn or unsupported.
- Saying someone’s account is “false” is not necessarily accusing them of lying
The Court also examined whether stating that Ms Pearson’s account was “false” amounted to alleging dishonesty.
It concluded:
“‘false’ just means ‘not true’… To say that a person has said something false is not to say anything about the state of her mind”.
This distinction is critical in defamation law. There is a meaningful difference between saying something is inaccurate and saying it is deliberately untrue.
Why this case matters
This decision is particularly relevant in today’s environment, where:
- Investigations are routinely reported in real-time;
- Public authorities issue press statements quickly; and
- Commentators analyse live situations across media platforms.
The case reinforces that:
- Being linked to an investigation alone can be defamatory;
- Careful wording is essential in public statements; and
- Corrections or updates can significantly affect/mitigate liability.
How can we help?
Kevin Modiri is a Partner in our expert Dispute Resolution team, specialising in civil disputes, insolvency, inheritance disputes, data breach claims and defamation claims.
If you want to discuss defamatory investigation statements or something similar, please do not hesitate to contact Kevin or another member of the team in Derby, Leicester, or Nottingham on 0800 024 1976 or via our online enquiry form.
Contact usIf this article relates to a specific case/cases, please note that the facts of this case/cases are correct at the time of writing.