Hewson v Times Newspapers Ltd & Anor

Factual and Procedural Background

The Plaintiff initiated libel proceedings against the publishers of two articles published on 12 April 2017 by Company A and Company B. The Plaintiff alleges that the articles defamed her by imputing that she committed serious criminal acts, including making death threats to a law student and engaging in harassment against that student and another individual. The Claim Form was issued on 10 April 2018, with Particulars of Claim dated 12 June 2018. The Defendants have not filed Defences but applied for the court to determine the meaning of the articles as a preliminary issue, which was ordered on 20 December 2018. The Plaintiff also complained about a social media post linking to one of the articles, contending it bore the same defamatory meaning when read in conjunction with the article.

Legal Issues Presented

1. What is the natural and ordinary meaning of the words complained of in each of the articles?
2. Whether the articles bear a general defamatory sting or distinct defamatory imputations?
3. Whether the repetition rule applies to the publication of allegations made by third parties?
4. Whether the determination of meaning can be made as a preliminary issue without a hearing consistent with the principle of open justice?

Arguments of the Parties

Plaintiff's Arguments

• The articles clearly allege the Plaintiff's guilt, presenting overwhelming evidence without any antidote.
• Use of quotation marks around "made death threats" and references to allegations do not lower the defamatory meaning due to the repetition rule.
• The Plaintiff is portrayed as disreputable and the subject of multiple complaints.
• The complainant is credible with no suggestion of mistake or fabrication; the articles suggest a motive for the Plaintiff's alleged conduct.
• The conduct alleged is serious enough to warrant reporting to the professional regulator and police.
• The alleged defamatory imputations relate specifically to one individual, and the Plaintiff does not seek to complain about other allegations.
• Regarding the second article, the harassment warning is presented as a finding of guilt following police investigation.

First Defendant's Arguments

• The key issue is the level of defamatory meaning under the Chase framework; the article does not adopt or endorse the allegations to the level 1 meaning.
• The repetition rule applies, and the article conveys that there are grounds to investigate, but does not assert guilt.
• The police harassment warning is described as having no legal standing and does not establish wrongdoing.
• The article does not express or imply veracity of the allegations.
• The reasonable reader understands the complaints to the professional regulator as newsworthy without implying guilt.
• The article's references to multiple complaints and the Plaintiff's controversial views do not elevate the meaning beyond grounds to investigate.
• The Plaintiff's proposed "highly likely" standard of guilt is conceptually unclear and not consistent with the Chase levels.
• The general or distinct sting issue is best resolved at a later stage, not as part of the preliminary meaning determination.

Second Defendant's Arguments

• The Plaintiff's meaning is too narrow and artificially focuses on one individual's account.
• The article has a broader focus including multiple complaints connected by a common theme of harassment.
• The alleged conduct towards different complainants is sufficiently related to constitute a general sting.
• The Chase levels are a useful framework but do not constrain the court's determination of actual meaning.
• The Plaintiff's meaning overstates the gravity a reasonable reader would attach to untested third-party allegations.
• The article clarifies that the allegations are uncorroborated and reported to initiate investigations, not findings of guilt.
• The police harassment warning and complaints are reported in context, indicating an inconclusive investigation.
• The article references the contentious nature of the dispute and the Plaintiff's professional standing, which mitigates against a finding of guilt.
• The court should find the article bears the meaning contended for by the Second Defendant, reflecting repeated harassment and grounds for investigation.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court examined the two articles individually, reading each in full before considering the parties' submissions. It found that both articles plainly alleged the Plaintiff's guilt, with the key question being the precise nature of that guilt. The court applied established defamation principles, particularly the repetition rule, which prevents a publisher from escaping liability by merely reporting allegations made by others without endorsement or adoption. The court rejected the First Defendant's argument that "adoption" requires active or express endorsement, holding that republication of defamatory hearsay constitutes adoption in the primary sense.

The court emphasized that the overall effect of the articles must be assessed, including the impact of headlines and the context in which allegations appear. It found that the articles were "all bane and no antidote," providing no substantive mitigating material to offset the defamatory imputations. References to police warnings and professional complaints did not negate the impression of guilt but rather raised questions about why more serious action had not been taken.

Regarding the general versus distinct sting issue, the court accepted the Second Defendant's argument that the ordinary reasonable reader would understand the articles to convey a general allegation of repeated harassment, as the allegations overlapped and concerned similar conduct. It rejected the Plaintiff's attempt to isolate specific imputations narrowly.

The court also considered the procedural question of determining meaning without an oral hearing. It acknowledged the principle of open justice but found that, with consent of the parties and a transparent procedure involving written submissions, open court hand-down, and publication of submissions, the determination of meaning as a preliminary issue without a hearing was appropriate and consistent with justice.

Holding and Implications

The court held that:

• The natural and ordinary meaning of The Times article is that the Plaintiff was guilty of repeated acts of harassment and online bullying, including making death threats and sending distressing images to the law student, and directing abusive language at another individual over several months.
• The natural and ordinary meaning of the MailOnline article is substantially the same general allegation of repeated harassment and online bullying, with slight textual differences not material to seriousness.
• The articles bear a general defamatory sting encompassing repeated harassing behaviour rather than distinct, isolated imputations.
• The repetition rule applies, and the republication of allegations amounts to adoption of those allegations for meaning purposes.
• The determination of meaning as a preliminary issue without an oral hearing, on the basis of written submissions with a public hand-down, is permissible where parties consent and open justice is respected.

Implications: The decision establishes the meanings of the articles for the purposes of the libel proceedings, allowing the case to proceed on the basis that the publications impute guilt of harassment and threatening conduct to the Plaintiff. No new legal precedent was set beyond confirming the application of established principles such as the repetition rule and procedural management of preliminary issues in libel cases.