Michael Sivier v Rachel Riley
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Lord Justice Warby,Lord Justice Henderson,Dame Victoria Sharp, P |
| Judgment Date | 14 May 2021 |
| Neutral Citation | [2021] EWCA Civ 713 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Docket Number | Case No: A2/2021/0231/QBENI |
| Date | 14 May 2021 |
[2021] EWCA Civ 713
Dame Victoria Sharp, PRESIDENT OF THE QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
Lord Justice Henderson
and
Lord Justice Warby
Case No: A2/2021/0231/QBENI
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
MEDIA AND COMMUNICATIONS LIST
Mrs Justice Collins Rice
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
David Mitchell (instructed by George Green LLP) for the Appellant
John Stables (instructed by Patron Law) for the Respondent
Hearing date: 27 April 2021
Approved Judgment
Rachel Riley is a well-known television presenter. On 26 January 2019 the defendant, a political journalist, published an article about her under the heading “ Serial abuser Rachel Riley to receive ‘extra protection’ – on grounds that she is receiving abuse” (“the Article”). Ms Riley sued for libel. At a trial of preliminary issues Nicklin J determined the meaning of the Article; he held that it was partly factual and partly an expression of opinion; and he ruled that the meaning as a whole was defamatory at common law. Mr Sivier then filed a Defence relying on the defences of truth, honest opinion, and publication on matter of public interest which are provided for by ss 2, 3 and 4 of the Defamation Act 2013 (“the 2013 Act”) respectively. Ms Riley's application to strike out all those defences was granted by Collins Rice J, DBE, CB. This appeal against the striking out of the public interest defence is brought with the permission of Arnold LJ. He refused permission to appeal against the dismissal of the defences of truth and honest opinion. Ms Riley has filed a Respondent's Notice seeking to uphold the Judge's decision on additional or alternative grounds.
For the reasons that follow, I would allow the appeal. I would set aside the order striking out the defence of publication on matter of public interest, and substitute an order dismissing that aspect of Ms Riley's application. In my view, the appropriate course is for the public interest defence to be assessed at a trial.
The procedural background
The words complained of are set out in the Appendix to this judgment. It will be seen that the Article began by referring to some statements Ms Riley had reportedly made in or via the national media about online abuse of which she had been the victim. It then made a number of allegations about Ms Riley's own online behaviour, commencing with a suggestion that she herself was a “serial abuser”. The allegations included assertions about Ms Riley's conduct towards a teenage girl who was said to have received death threats. Mr Sivier told readers that evidence in support of what he was telling them was to be found in two external articles, to which hyperlinks were provided.
Nicklin J's conclusions on the preliminary issues he tried were embodied in a formal order in these terms:-
“1. The statement complained of means that,
(1) the Claimant has engaged upon, supported and encouraged a campaign of online abuse and harassment of a 16-year-old girl, conduct which has also incited her followers to make death threats towards her.
(2) By so doing, the Claimant is a serial abuser and has acted
a. hypocritically: by complaining about being the victim of online abuse and death threats herself whilst at the same time committing serial abuse of someone who has in consequence herself now been subjected to death threats (but someone who, unlike the Claimant, cannot afford additional security protection);
b. recklessly and irresponsibly: by provoking her followers to subject the 16-year-old to further abuse and harassment, including death threats; and
c. obscenely.
2. The meaning at paragraph 1(1) above is a statement of fact.
3. The meaning at paragraph 1(2) above is an expression of opinion.
4. The meaning as a whole is defamatory at common law.”
Mr Sivier sought to defend the meaning at 1(1) as true, the meaning at 1(2) as honest opinion, and the statement as a whole as a publication on matter of public interest.
In support of the defence of truth, extensive particulars were set out at paragraphs 10 to 34 of the Defence. These relied principally on a large number of tweets posted between 16 December 2018 and 15 January 2019, by Ms Riley, the young woman, named Rose, associates of Rose, followers of Ms Riley, and a friend of hers, Tracey-Ann Oberman. Those tweets were said to show that Ms Riley had behaved in the ways alleged in meaning 1(1). In support of his defence of honest opinion, Mr Sivier relied on the same tweets as “facts which existed at the time the statement complained of were published … from which an honest person could have held the opinion”, as required by s 3(4) of the 2013 Act. Other matters relied on for the same purpose included three media publications, identified in paragraph 38 of the Defence, as follows:
“c) In an interview with the journalist, Krishnan Guru-Murthy, broadcast by Channel 4 News on 9 January 2019, the Claimant complained that she was a victim of online abuse.
d) The Claimant further complained that she was a victim of online abuse including physical threats with the result that “We are getting more security for Countdown” in an article published on 26 January 2019 by The Times newspaper ( “Rachel Riley of Countdown finds her Jewish roots to take on the Corbynistas”)
e) In its article, “Rachel Riley to get extra security after receiving online threats”, also published on 26 January 2019, The Guardian newspaper reported the Claimant's statements in The Times newspaper that she was to receive extra security at work following physical threats to which she had been subjected online.”
In support of the alternative defence of publication on matter of public interest Mr Sivier relied on those same three publications, some of the tweets set out in support of the plea of truth, and the two external articles Mr Sivier identified in the Article as containing evidence in support of what he was saying.
To place Mr Sivier's pleaded case in context it is necessary to start with the requirements of the public interest defence. These are exhaustively set out in s 4 of the 2013 Act, in these terms:-
“4 Publication on matter of public interest
(1) It is a defence to an action for defamation for the defendant to show that—
(a) the statement complained of was, or formed part of, a statement on a matter of public interest; and
(b) the defendant reasonably believed that publishing the statement complained of was in the public interest.
(2) Subject to subsections (3) and (4), in determining whether the defendant has shown the matters mentioned in subsection (1), the court must have regard to all the circumstances of the case.
(3) If the statement complained of was, or formed part of, an accurate and impartial account of a dispute to which the claimant was a party, the court must in determining whether it was reasonable for the defendant to believe that publishing the statement was in the public interest disregard any omission of the defendant to take steps to verify the truth of the imputation conveyed by it.
(4) In determining whether it was reasonable for the defendant to believe that publishing the statement complained of was in the public interest, the court must make such allowance for editorial judgement as it considers appropriate.
(5) For the avoidance of doubt, the defence under this section may be relied upon irrespective of whether the statement complained of is a statement of fact or a statement of opinion.
(6) The common law defence known as the Reynolds defence is abolished.”
As will be apparent, a defendant who relies on this defence must establish three things: (1) that the statement was on, or was part of a statement on, some matter of public interest; (2) that the defendant believed that publishing the statement complained of was in the public interest; and (3) that the defendant's belief was reasonable: Economou v de Freitas [2018] EWCA Civ 2591, [2019] EMLR 7 [87]. The first and third elements are objective, the second is subjective: ibid., [95]; Doyle v Smith [2018] EWHC 2935 (QB), [2019] EMLR 15 [64], [87].
Paragraph 39 of the Defence set out Mr Sivier's case on the first element, namely the requirement at s 4(1)(a):
“The Defendant's Article addressed the following matters of public interest:
(1) Online bullying and harassment including death threats.
(2) The power of an adult celebrity compared to the relative powerlessness of a vulnerable child suffering anxiety.
(3) Mental health.
(4) Anti-Semitism.”
Paragraphs 40 and 41 of the Defence dealt with the second and third elements: those set out in s 4(1)(b) of the 2013 Act. The Defence averred that “the Defendant reasonably believed that publishing the statement complained of was in the public interest” and provided the following particulars:
“40 ….
(1) The Channel 4 News broadcast (watched by 7.4m people per month in 2018), The Times article (daily online readership of 683,000), The Guardian article (daily online readership of 4,874,000) as well as the Claimant's own tweets (published to her approximately 610,000 Twitter followers) reported that she was the victim of online harassment and physical threats. Furthermore, in her tweets the Claimant denied being a bully.
(2) The Defendant's Article provided a wider context to the story by way of a counter-narrative suggesting that the Claimant was a hypocrite given her own harassment (leading to death threats from her followers) of a child victim who was vulnerable both...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rachel Riley v Mike Sivier
...continues to publish on the Website. The words complained of are set out in the Appendix to the judgment of Warby LJ in Sivier v Riley [2021] EWCA Civ 713, [2021] EMLR 3 On 11 December 2019, Nicklin J determined that the words complained of in the Article mean: “(1) The Claimant has engage......
-
Blacklion Law LLP v Amira Nature Foods Ltd and Another
...principles apply in such a case is not entirely clear. It is, however, fair to say that in an interlocutory appeal in Riley v Sivier [2021] EWCA Civ 713, [2021] 4 WLR 84, where the respondent wished to raise a new point, Warby LJ said that this court does not usually allow new points to b......
-
Northumbria Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust v R & C Commissioners
...that was not raised before the first instance court: see e.g. Singh v Dass [2019] EWCA Civ 360, paragraphs 15–18, and Sivier v Riley [2021] EWCA Civ 713, paragraph 18. The Trust has now had two bites of the cherry, in its appeal to the FTT and its further appeal to this Tribunal. The argume......
-
CF Booth Ltd v R & C Commissioners
...differently: see e.g. Singh v Dass [2019] EWCA Civ 360, paragraphs 15–18. We also note the comments of Warby LJ in Sivier v Riley [2021] EWCA Civ 713, paragraph 18, that “[w]e do not usually allow entirely new points to be taken on appeal. It is often procedurally unfair to do so, and norma......
-
Reputation Update: Michael Sivier Wins His Appeal Against Strike Out In Rachel Riley Dispute
...Sivier [2021] EWCA Civ 713 Michael Sivier, a political blogger, has won his appeal against the striking out of the public interest element of his defence in a dispute with the Countdown presenter, Rachel Riley. Court of Appeal judges have ruled that whilst Mr Sivier's public interest defenc......
-
Court Of Appeal Overturns Decision To Strike Out The Defendant's Defence Of Public Interest In Libel Proceedings Brought By TV Presenter Rachel Riley
...time and place for an evaluation of these issues was at a trial. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed. (Michael Sivier v Rachel Riley [2021] EWCA Civ 713 (14 May 2021) ' to read the judgment in full, click The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matt......