BBC Wildlife presenter, Chris Packham, has been on the receiving end of a number of publications accusing him of fraud/dishonesty in respect of his attempts to raise money for a wildlife sanctuary based in the Isle of Wight on the basis that he claimed that the sanctuary had rescued some of the tigers housed there from a circus where they had been mistreated.
Chris Packham v Wight and Others [2022]
Case background
Chris Packham brought defamation proceedings against the publishers of those articles/YouTube videos and the matter has been before Mr Justice Johnson recently for a preliminary hearing to determine the following:
- “The natural and ordinary meanings of the statements complained of by the claimant.
- Whether the said statements, in the meanings found, are defamatory of the claimant at common law.
- Whether the said statements, in the meanings found, are or contain statements of opinion within the meaning of section 3(2) Defamation Act 2013.
- If in relation to any of the said statements the answer to the question in (3) above is ‘yes’, whether the statement complained of indicated, whether in general or specific terms, the basis of such opinion for the purposes of s3(3) Defamation Act 2013.”
There were a total of eight publications that the Defendant accepted the meaning attributed to them by the Claimant and that those meanings are defamatory if proven to be untrue and so there was nothing for the Court to determine in respect of those allegations. The Judge found that the meanings ascribed to the comments made were largely the same as those contended for by the Claimant. Some examples are below:
“(1) First article: This publication carries the meaning:
“Chris Packham abused his privileged position as a BBC presenter by fraudulently raising funds from the public for his girlfriend’s zoo charity by falsely stating that tigers at the zoo had been mistreated by, and rescued from, a circus, when, as he knew, the tigers were well-loved family pets that had been donated to the zoo.”…
(4) Fourth article: This publication carries the meaning:
“Chris Packham told many lies about tigers under the care of the Wildheart trust, in order to dupe the public, saying that tigers were rescued from unimaginable neglect and cruelty, having lived hellish lives confined within squalid beast-wagons or crammed into tiny pens where they were left to fight for scraps of food in between performances, when he knew that they had been well-treated.”
It is perhaps unsurprising, given the meanings attributed to the comments made by the Court, that the Judge also found that those meanings are defamatory. Mr Justice Johnson stated:
“…The Court’s task is “to determine the single natural and ordinary meaning of the words”. This is “the meaning that the hypothetical reasonable reader would understand the words bear.” In making that determination the Court should apply the approach identified in Koutsogiannis at [12].
- Fact/opinion:The principles are summarised by Nicklin J in Koutsogiannis at [16]-[18]. The ultimate question is the impact on the hypothetical reasonable reader (Koutsogiannis at [16(iii)]), in other words whether the hypothetical reasonable reader would understand the passage in question, read in context, as conveying fact or opinion. Determining whether words express an opinion, or an asserted fact, is part and parcel of determining the words’ meaning. The Court should not therefore determine these two issues separately in “too linear or compartmentalised a fashion”…
- The meaning of each of the articles is set out at paragraph 34 above. Each of those meanings is defamatory of the claimant at common law. All the meanings amount to statements of fact rather than expressions of opinion.”
The Judge ordered that the Claimant and Defendant amend their pleaded cases in light of the meanings found by the Court. The matter will then progress to trial, no doubt mainly revolving around whether the allegations made against Chris Packham were true or not.
How can we help?
Kevin Modiri is a Partner in our expert Dispute Resolution team.
If you have any questions concerning the subjects discussed in this article, 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 us