On 11 August 2022, the Court of Appeal handed down a judgment that provided useful guidance on the various defences available in defamation cases in the case of Riley v Murray.
Riley v Murray
Case background
The case revolved around a tweet made against the well-known television presenter, Rachel Riley, by the Defendant in response to a tweet that the Claimant had previously made. The Claimant’s tweet referred to a previous tweet by Owen Jones in respect of an incident where Nick Griffin, the former leader of the British National Party, had an egg thrown at him, in which Mr Jones stated:
“Oh: I think an egg was thrown at him actually. I think sound life advice is, if you don’t want eggs thrown at you, don’t be a Nazi. Seems fair to me.”
On 3 March 2019, a similar thing happened to Jeremy Corbyn (in that he too had an egg thrown at him). Later that same day, the Claimant tweeted a screenshot of Mr Jones’ previous tweet along with a picture of an egg and a red rose (referred to as the Good Advice Tweet or GAT in the judgment). The Judge held that this tweet was clearly in response to the incident involving Mr Corbyn earlier that day.
The Defendant posted a reply to the GAT in the following terms:
“You are publicly encouraging violent attacks against a man who is already a target for death threats. Please think for a second about what a dangerous and unhealthy role you are now choosing to play in public life.”
The Defendant also posted a separate tweet, without replying to or referencing the GAT, in the following terms:
“Today Jeremy Corbyn went to his local mosque for Visit My Mosque Day, and was attacked by a Brexiteer.
Rachel Riley tweets that Corbyn deserves to be violently attacked because he is a Nazi.
This woman is as dangerous as she is stupid. Nobody should engage with her. Ever.” (Defendant’s Tweet)
At a preliminary hearing, the Court determined the single and ordinary meaning of the Defendant’s Tweet as follows:
“(i) The natural and ordinary meaning of the [Defendant’s Tweet] is:
(1) Jeremy Corbyn had been attacked when he visited a mosque.
(2) The Claimant had publicly stated in a tweet that he deserved to be violently attacked.
(3) By so doing, the Claimant has shown herself to be a dangerous and stupid person who risked inciting unlawful violence. People should not engage with her.
(ii) Paragraphs (1) and (2) are statements of fact. Paragraph (3) is an expression of opinion.
(iii) Paragraphs (2) and (3) are defamatory at common law.”
The Defendant at trial ran the defences of the truth, honest opinion, and public interest. The Judge at first instant found in favour of the Claimant but reduced her damages on the basis that the GAT was plainly intended to be ambiguous and in this regard was “provocative, even mischievous”.
The Defendant appealed.
The Court of Appeal’s decision
In respect of the defence of the truth, the Court of Appeal upheld the Judge at first instant’s decision on the point, which is summarised as follows:
“77. Nevertheless, the Defendant’s defence of truth fails. What the Defendant stated, as a matter of fact, in the Defendant’s Tweet is not substantially true; it was at best half the story, presented to readers of the Defendant’s Tweet as if it was the full story. Critically, it took away the important fact that what the Good Advice Tweet said was a matter of interpretation or opinion, upon which reasonable views could differ, and replaced it with the Defendant’s unequivocal statement of what it meant as a matter of fact. In doing so, the Defendant’s Tweet was a misrepresentation of what the Claimant had said in the Good Advice Tweet.
78. The position in which the Defendant finds herself could easily have been avoided. If she had said, in the Defendant’s Tweet, for example, that the Claimant had posted a Tweet that was capable of suggesting, or implied, that Jeremy Corbyn deserved to be violently attacked then she may well have had a viable defence of truth (or honest opinion). But she did not do this. She took upon herself the burden of describing, as a matter of fact, what the Claimant had said and failed because she removed the element of ambiguity. Worse, she added the two elements that the Claimant had stated that Mr Corbyn “deserved to be violently attacked”. By doing so, the Defendant put forward the very worst construction that could be put upon the Good Advice Tweet and stated, as a fact, that this was what the Claimant had said.
79. These are not trivial differences, or ones that could be excused as small errors of detail, or exaggeration, within the permitted parameters of a defence of truth. There is a significant and material difference, not least in terms of likely harm to reputation, between offering an interpretation of what someone has said, and pronouncing unequivocally the interpretation …”
As for honest opinion, the Court had to consider whether the following conditions had been met:
- The comment made was a statement of opinion;
- The statement complained of indicated, whether in general or specific terms, the basis of the opinion;
- An honest person could have held the opinion on the basis of (a) any fact that existed at the time the statement complained of was published; (b) anything asserted to be a fact in a privileged statement published before the statement complained of.
The defence is, however, defeated if the Claimant shows that the Defendant did not hold the opinion.
The Court upheld the Judge at first instance’s approach that, if the facts upon which the opinion reached are untrue, the defence of honest opinion cannot succeed.
In respect of the public interest defence, the Court affirmed that the defence must fail on the basis that:
‘it was unreasonable for the defendant to believe that it was in the public interest to characterise the GAT as she did, and to express the opinion she did, when it was obvious and therefore should have been apparent to her that a different and much less damaging interpretation of the GAT was available’.
Comment
This case has some important clarification in it and highlights how technical an area of defamation law is. With this in mind, it is essential to seek expert advice if you are affected by any defamatory comments as soon as possible.
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