Poulter v Times Newspapers Ltd

Factual and Procedural Background

This is the trial of the preliminary issues of meaning in a libel action brought by the Plaintiff against the Defendant. The Claim Form was issued on 30 August 2018, and no defence has been served by consent of the parties. On 16 October 2018, Master Gidden ordered the trial of meaning as a preliminary issue.

The claim arises from the publication of two articles in the print edition and online of a national newspaper on 5 November 2017. The print edition featured a prominent picture of the Plaintiff with a headline and strapline referencing a "Westminster Scandal" and allegations that the Plaintiff, a former minister and practising doctor, had put his hands up the skirts of female Members of Parliament (MPs).

One article ("the Wheeler Article"), authored by the deputy political editor, contained a sub-headline and a "Formal Complaint" notice, reporting that the Plaintiff was finally being investigated after complaints. The second article ("the Bridgen Article"), attributed to a Member of Parliament, was separately authored and enclosed in large red inverted commas. Both articles appeared on the same page flanking the Plaintiff's picture.

Both print articles were also published online, with versions set out in the judgment's appendix. At the foot of each online article were "Related Links" to the other article, but without explicit direction to read the linked article. Both online articles carried a notice that they were the subject of a legal complaint by the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff pleaded each article as a separate publication with distinct meanings attributed to each. The Defendant contended that the articles, both print and online, should be read together as a single publication for the purpose of determining meaning.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the two print articles should be read together as a single publication to determine the meaning of the words complained of.
2. Whether the two online articles should be read together as a single publication or treated as separate publications for meaning.
3. The proper legal approach to ascertaining meaning in a defamation claim involving multiple articles and contributors.
4. The application of the repetition rule and the Chase taxonomy in determining the level of defamatory meaning.

Arguments of the Parties

Plaintiff's Arguments

• The offending publication must be considered as a whole, but the print edition clearly falls into two distinct parts authored separately, each with a different voice and role, thus requiring separate meanings.
• There is no rule requiring the court to find a single meaning straddling disparate parts of coverage, especially where different authors contribute distinct perspectives.
• Applying a single meaning rule could unfairly affect the prospects of defences under the Defamation Act 2013 and the assessment of aggravated damages.
• The articles are not neutral or balanced reports; the Bridgen Article is a one-sided denunciation portraying the Plaintiff as guilty without inviting readers to suspend judgment.
• The repetition of "alleged" does not dilute the meaning of guilt, as the Bridgen Article proceeds on the basis that the allegations are true and aims to encourage victims to come forward.
• The overall impression conveyed by the articles is that the Plaintiff is guilty of sexual assault by putting his hand up the skirts of three female MPs.

Defendant's Arguments

• The print articles must be read together as a single publication because the cause of action arises from the totality of the words published across both articles.
• The same approach should apply to the online articles, reading them together to attribute a single meaning.
• Relying on precedent, articles sufficiently closely connected in the same edition can be regarded as a single publication for meaning.
• The articles indicate that allegations were made, a complaint was lodged, and an investigation was underway; they do not state that the Plaintiff is guilty of sexual assault.
• The Plaintiff wrongly seeks to elevate the Bridgen Article to an allegation of guilt; the articles contain qualifying language, including that the Plaintiff denies the allegations.
• The meaning contended by the Defendant is that there are grounds to investigate whether the Plaintiff sexually harassed or assaulted women in Parliament, a lower Chase level meaning.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court began by considering the proper approach to determining meaning in defamation, emphasizing that the publication must be considered as a whole in context. Applying the Charleston principle and the precedent in Dee, the court found it unarguable that the two print articles should not be read together to ascertain a single natural and ordinary meaning. The articles are closely connected, appear on the same page, and the Wheeler Article specifically refers readers to the Bridgen Article. The different authorship and voices do not prevent the application of a single meaning, as liability for publication is determined by the publisher.

Regarding the online articles, the court recognized the limits of the Charleston rule in the context of hyperlinks. It noted that the "Related Links" sections at the foot of each online article did not explicitly encourage or require readers to read the other article. The Bridgen Article online appeared self-contained, and the Wheeler Article summarized it without directing readers to it. Therefore, the online articles were treated as separate publications, each requiring a separate determination of meaning.

In assessing the meaning, the court applied the Chase taxonomy to categorize the defamatory meanings contended by the parties. The Plaintiff's meanings were at Chase level 1 or 2 (allegation of guilt or reasonable grounds to suspect guilt), while the Defendant contended a Chase level 3 meaning (grounds to investigate).

The court rejected an overly analytical approach, emphasizing the importance of the overall impression on the ordinary reasonable reader. It found that, when read together, the print articles clearly suggest the Plaintiff is guilty of sexual assault by putting his hand up the skirts of three female MPs. The articles were unbalanced and one-sided, with little antidote to the allegations. The repeated use of "alleged" did not dilute the meaning, as the overall effect was to convey guilt.

The Bridgen Article was a direct condemnation, premised on the Plaintiff's guilt, aimed at encouraging other victims to come forward. The source of the allegations—three MPs—was a particularly powerful factor corroborating the claims. The Wheeler Article provided context of a "Westminster Scandal" and a cover-up, reinforcing the impression of guilt.

The court noted that the articles did not explicitly address whether the conduct was criminal, but readers would appreciate the seriousness. The investigation mentioned was seen as a response to wrongdoing rather than a neutral inquiry.

For the online publications, the court found that the Bridgen Article bore the same meaning as the print version, while the Wheeler Article online bore a meaning limited to reasonable grounds to suspect guilt. The court did not decide the meaning of the Wheeler Article online in detail, as the Plaintiff limited the meaning pleaded.

Holding and Implications

The court held that the two print articles must be read together as a single publication, and the natural and ordinary meaning of the combined publication is that the Plaintiff was guilty of sexual assault by putting his hand up the skirts of three female Members of Parliament.

The court further held that the two online articles are separate publications. The online Bridgen Article carries the same meaning as the print version (guilt of sexual assault), while the online Wheeler Article carries a meaning limited to reasonable grounds to suspect such conduct.

The direct effect of this decision is to define the defamatory meanings for the purposes of the libel action. No broader legal precedent altering the law of defamation is established, and the ruling clarifies the application of principles relating to multiple articles and online hyperlinks in meaning determination.