The Scope Of The Public Interest Defence

Sivier v Riley

Background

Rachel Riley pursued a claim in defamation against the Defendant, Michael Sivier, in relation to an article that he had published about her.

Mr Sivier tried to rely upon the defence of honest opinion and public interest in accordance with Sections 3 and 4 of the Defamation Act 2013. This case offers helpful guidance on how the Court should assess the reasonableness of a defendant’s belief that a publication is in the public interest.

In the first instance, Ms Riley was successful in striking out Mr Sivier’s defence. Mr Sivier appealed against the strikeout. The Court of Appeal refused his permission in relation to his defence of honest opinion. They did, however, allow the appeal on the basis that the Judge had failed to apply Section 4 in relation to the defence of public interest.

What was decided?

The Court of Appeal held that the Judge in the first instance had erred in concluding that the failure of the truth and honest opinion defence meant that there was no reasonable basis for establishing the public interest defence.

This judgment highlights two important points in relation to the defence of public interest.

1. Firstly, the defence specifically relates to the statement complained of and not the meaning as established by the Court. In essence, the meaning the Defendant intended his words to convey is relevant when establishing whether or not the publication was in the public interest.
2. Secondly, a defence of public interest can succeed even if the underlying facts are proven to be false. The effect being that the defence of public interest gives a certain degree of latitude that you would not have relying on the truth defence.

As a result of the above, the Court of Appeal set aside the strikeout, concluding that a trial would be necessary to determine the reasonableness of Mr Sivier’s belief that the publication was in the public’s interest.