High Court defends freedom of expression for news websites

12 April 2010 by


Read judgment

A claim for libel in respect of three articles in a news website’s archive has been struck out in the Hight Court by Mrs Justice Sharp. When read in context, the articles were incapable of bearing the alleged defamatory meaning, the publisher had attached Loutchansky notices to them, and it would be a disproportionate interference with the publisher’s rights under ECHR Article 10 to allow the claim to proceed where it had been brought after four years had passed since the publication of the articles.


The Claimant brought proceedings in respect of three archived articles published by the BBC in mid 2004. They related to the decision of Cambridgeshire Constabulary to withdraw an oral job offer made to the Claimant after subsequently investigating the legality of his immigration status. Within weeks of first being published, the articles became accessible only in the archive, via search engines. The action related to the articles in the archive and the related Google snippets.

The first article did not name the Claimant while the later two articles did, but also contained details of the Claimant’s assertion that he was present legally in the UK. The first article could not be accessed by a search for the Claimant’s name, but only through links provided on the pages displaying the second and third articles.

Mrs Justice Sharp struck out the claim.

The second and third articles did not have the defamatory meaning alleged by the Claimant:

“at worst, the articles when read together are capable of meaning there were in 2004 unresolved questions about the Claimant’s immigration status, which he may not have fully disclosed to the police” (paragraph 52),

“[i]t is quite clear from the articles that the suggestion is not that the Claimant is or may be a security risk at all; but that security vetting revealed issues as to his immigration status including his right to work, which is a wholly different matter” (paragraph 56).

As the second article was not defamatory, it followed that the BBC could not be liable, even arguably, for its republication on Google:

…it would not be appropriate or just in my view to make the publisher of the original webpage responsible in law for a snippet which makes a defamatory allegation (for example, because it detaches certain words from their context) not made in the original webpage itself” (paragraph 77).

The first article, if read alone, could not be understood as referring to the Claimant. It had, therefore, to be read through the prism of the second and/or third article. When the articles were read together, the first article was not capable of bearing the defamatory meaning alleged by the Claimant. The Claimant had not disclosed to the Constabulary that there were at least question marks over his immigration status when he applied for the job. As a consequence, the residual defamatory meaning which the first article was capable of bearing was unquestionably true.

Where it was known that archive material was or might be defamatory, the attachment of an appropriate notice warning against treating it as the truth would normally remove any sting from the material, following the Court of Appeal decision in Loutchansky v Times Newspapers [2001] EWCA Civ 1805. The BBC had adopted that course by attaching a notice to the articles.

“The court is entitled to have regard to the practical problems facing defendants who have to face the sort of detailed inquiries into the responsibility of their conduct many years ago which such a defence [qualified privilege] entails” (paragraph 111).

Mrs Justice Sharp commented that

“Generally, it is a disproportionate interference with a party’s [ECHR] article 10 rights to bring a claim for libel after a significant period of time has elapsed. In my judgment, the potential prejudice to a defendant in advancing a defence is a relevant factor to be weighed against permitting a claim in respect of archived internet material to proceed, many years after the date of the original publication” (paragraph 118).

A balance between the potentially competing rights under articles 6, 8 and 10 must be struck. In this case the BBC no longer retained much of the material which it had used to produce the articles, causing it to suffer significant prejudice if the case proceeded to trial, while the Claimant’s case was speculative in nature.

In those circumstances, permitting the action to continue would constitute a disproportionate interference with the BBC’s rights and would be an abuse of process.

Read more:

Welcome to the UKHRB

This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.




Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption AI air pollution air travel ALBA Allergy Al Qaeda Amnesty International animal rights Animals Anne Sacoolas anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 article 263 TFEU Artificial Intelligence Asbestos Assange assisted suicide asylum asylum seekers Australia autism badgers benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery British Waterways Board care homes Catholic Church Catholicism Chagos Islanders Charter of Fundamental Rights child protection Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners civil partnerships climate change clinical negligence closed material procedure Coercion Commission on a Bill of Rights common law communications competition confidentiality consent conservation constitution contact order contact tracing contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus coronavirus act 2020 costs costs budgets Court of Protection covid crime criminal law Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation DEFRA deportation deprivation of liberty derogations Detention Dignitas diplomacy diplomatic relations disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Equality Act 2010 Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Facebook Facial Recognition Family Fatal Accidents Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office foreign policy France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage gay rights Gaza Gender genetics Germany Google Grenfell Gun Control hague convention Harry Dunn Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Human Rights Watch Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests insurance international law internet inuit Iran Iraq Ireland islam Israel Italy IVF ivory ban Japan joint enterprise judaism judicial review Judicial Review reform Julian Assange jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid legal aid cuts Leveson Inquiry lgbtq liability Libel Liberty Libya lisbon treaty Lithuania local authorities marriage Media and Censorship mental capacity Mental Capacity Act Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery morocco murder music Muslim nationality national security naturism neuroscience NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges nuisance Obituary ouster clauses parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury physician assisted death Piracy Plagiarism planning planning system Poland Police Politics Pope press prison Prisoners prisoner votes Prisons privacy procurement Professional Discipline Property proportionality prosecutions prostituton Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries quarantine Radicalisation refugee rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania round-up Round Up Royals Russia saudi arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Secret trials sexual offence shamima begum Sikhism Smoking social media social workers South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing starvation statelessness stem cells stop and search Strasbourg super injunctions Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance sweatshops Syria Tax technology Terrorism The Round Up tort Torture travel treason treaty accession trial by jury TTIP Turkey Twitter UK Ukraine universal credit universal jurisdiction unlawful detention USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Weekly Round-up Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe


This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.

%d bloggers like this: