Swan v Associated Newspapers Ltd

Factual and Procedural Background

The Plaintiff initiated a libel action concerning an article ("the Article") published on the website of Company A ("the Daily Mail website") on 11 March 2018. The Article has remained accessible since that date via the Daily Mail website and related Facebook pages maintained by Company A. The trial concerned preliminary issues pursuant to an order dated 28 February 2020 and was held prior to the service of any Defence.

The Plaintiff is described as a US-based modern spiritualist who writes, broadcasts, and presents talks and workshops internationally based on personal spiritual beliefs. The Defendant is the publisher of the Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday and operates the Daily Mail website and associated Facebook pages.

The Article, attributed to a reporter from Company A, carried headlines and sub-headlines characterizing the Plaintiff as a "cult leader" with unusual claims and a glamorous lifestyle, and included various allegations about the Plaintiff’s teachings and conduct. The Article contained ten large colour photographs of the Plaintiff in various settings and attire, accompanied by captions relevant to the Plaintiff's public persona and teachings.

The issues for trial were identified as: (1) the natural and ordinary meaning of the Article; (2) whether the Article contained statements of opinion or fact; and (3) the extent to which the meaning found was defamatory at common law.

Legal Issues Presented

1. What is the natural and ordinary meaning borne by the Article?
2. Does the Article contain statements of opinion or fact?
3. To what extent is the meaning found defamatory at common law?

Arguments of the Parties

Plaintiff's Arguments

• The Article has a clear six-part structure culminating in a defamatory "dangerous underside" section containing factual allegations.
• Most defamatory imputations arise from the latter half of the Article and are factual rather than comment, except for a few descriptive terms.
• The Plaintiff asserts the Article imputes factual allegations including making racist comments, endorsing suicide, and propagating dangerous beliefs.
• The Plaintiff criticizes the Defendant’s meaning for improperly enlarging the charge by imputing personal gain and using non-defamatory or low-level defamatory terms.
• The Plaintiff contends the Defendant downplays key defamatory aspects, notably concerning statements about Hitler and implied responsibility for suicides.

Defendant's Arguments

• The Plaintiff’s meaning is selectively constructed and fails to acknowledge the Article’s charge that the Plaintiff manipulates and indoctrinates followers.
• The Defendant contends the Plaintiff misinterprets statements about Hitler, which should be understood as suggesting Hitler acted as a catalyst for world peace rather than promoting it.
• The Defendant argues the Plaintiff’s interpretation of remarks about death and suicide is strained, and that references to follower suicides are factual background supporting opinion rather than imputations of causation.
• The Defendant submits that the defamatory charge and sub-imputations are expressions of opinion, including the terms "racist comments" and "concerning" or "worrisome" remarks about death and suicide.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court commenced by identifying the natural and ordinary meaning the Article would convey to an ordinary reasonable reader in England and Wales, applying the principles from Koutsogiannis and related authorities. The reader is neither avid for scandal nor naïve, and takes a middle course in interpretation.

The Court found that the Article as a whole bore an overall defamatory meaning portraying the Plaintiff as the leader of a cult with ambitions to cultivate devotion, power, and fame, who has a dangerous underside. This included being manipulative, unstable, propagating outlandish theories, making racist comments, expressing concerning views about Hitler and world peace, and making positive statements about death and suicide that appear to endorse suicide. The Article suggested a real possibility that the Plaintiff’s teachings may have caused or contributed to the suicides of two followers, and portrayed the Plaintiff as terrifying.

The Court rejected the Defendant’s narrower interpretation of the Plaintiff’s statements about Hitler and suicide, finding that the ordinary reader would understand the Article as imputing a defamatory factual meaning rather than mere opinion or neutral fact. The Court also held that the term "manipulative" and the description of the Plaintiff as having an unstable personality were defamatory comments under the Thornton standard.

In distinguishing fact from comment, the Court emphasized that the enquiry focuses on the words complained of and their immediate context. While some parts of the Article convey comment or opinion, many of the key defamatory imputations are factual or contain factual elements that are verifiable. The Court noted that some terms used by the parties (e.g., "outlandish", "eccentric", "bizarre", "disturbing") reflect the reader’s reasonable inference from the Article rather than explicit wording.

The Court acknowledged the complexity and subtlety of the submissions and adopted a balanced approach to the Plaintiff’s and Defendant’s meanings, ultimately finding a meaning that overlaps with but differs in some respects from both parties’ contentions. The Court also noted that the Article’s photographs and certain descriptive elements (e.g., glamour, luxury) were neutral and did not contribute to defamatory imputations.

Holding and Implications

The Court held that the Article bore a natural and ordinary meaning defamatory of the Plaintiff, including imputations of manipulativeness, instability, propagation of outlandish and dangerous theories, racist comments, concerning remarks about Hitler and world peace, and endorsement of suicide linked to the deaths of two followers.

The Court’s ruling establishes that these meanings are defamatory at common law and that the Article conveyed factual imputations as well as comment.

The direct effect of this decision is to define the defamatory meanings for the purposes of the ongoing libel action and to clarify the factual and opinion elements for trial. The opinion does not address issues such as serious harm under statute or defenses, nor does it set new precedent beyond applying established principles to the facts of this case.