November 19, 2018

The claimant, Stephen Doyle, was a property developer. The defendant, Patrick Smith, was a resident of the Bedfordshire village of Caddington who operated an online community blog called the Caddington Village News.

In 2015, Luton Rugby Football Club was in some financial difficulties. Mr Doyle formulated a proposal for the Club to move to a new ground. Under the proposal, Mr Doyle would buy the Club’s site at Newlands with a view to obtaining planning permission to build residential units on the land. He would also buy and develop a new ground and facilities for the Club on a greenfield site near Caddington, which he would then sell to the Club.

Mr Doyle’s proposal was to be put to the membership of the Club at a Special General Meeting in October 2015. A week before the SGM, a document entitled “Important Notice”, together with an accompanying plan, was sent out to Club members. This Notice contained a number of inaccurate and misleading points about the planning process and the stage it had reached. In any event, the proposal was approved by the Club’s membership at the SGM.

In July 2016, Mr Smith wrote and published four articles on his blog, which were critical of Mr Doyle and the proposal. The trial concerned two of the articles.

The first article was headed “‘The £10 Million Fraud’.. Stephen Doyle accuses Luton RFC of sending false documentation to members” and said that Mr Doyle had confirmed that he had read the false documentation before it went to the Members, but that he had asked the Rugby Club not to comment. The article said that Mr Doyle therefore knew that the Club was deceiving its members.

The second article was headed “Stephen Doyle has been Arrested” alleging, incorrectly, that Mr Doyle had been arrested for blackmail.

Mr Doyle brought proceedings for defamation against Mr Smith, complaining that the first article accused him of involvement in the perpetration of a fraud of up to £10 million on the members of the Club, and that the second article meant that there were reasonable grounds to suspect him of blackmail and sending malicious communications in connection with his proposal.

The facts were that Mr Doyle had not seen the Important Notice document until December 2015, when it was posted on Mr Smith’s blog. Further, Mr Doyle had played no role in obtaining or paying for the plans or drawings that had accompanied the Important Notice. In fact, Mr Doyle had confirmed this to Mr Smith in a telephone conversation before publication of the first article.

In relation to the first article, Mr Justice Warby said that it should not be assumed that readers would somehow discount its defamatory message on the basis that Mr Smith was an amateur with a tendency to overstatement.

Warby J found that the impression of the words conveyed was that there was deception, which Mr Doyle had known about and had condoned. The fact that certain elements of the article would have raised some doubts and reservations in the mind of the fair-minded reader meant that there was no outright allegation of fraud, Warby J said. However, there was still very good reason to believe that readers would understand that Mr Doyle had participated in an attempt to defraud the members.

Mr Smith raised a public interest defence under s 4 Defamation Act 2013. Under s 4(1)(a), Mr Smith had to show that the statement concerned was “on” a matter of public interest, or formed part of a statement that was “on” such a matter. This was an objective question.

Warby J found that the general subject matter of the first article was the Club’s proposed move. More specifically, it was about information issued by the Club to its members in the Important Notice and what Mr Doyle had said about that Notice and his role.

Warby J noted that the internal workings of a members’ club were intrinsically a private matter and not a matter of public concern. The fact that the proposal to move involved “a hugely important decision for the future of the Club” did not make it a matter of public interest.

However, where a private Club makes or contemplates a decision with significant effects on the wider community, then the position might well be different, Warby J said. It was agreed that the Club was a significant community institution, occupying a substantial site. Its proposed departure, with the resulting residential development, would have had a major impact on those in the vicinity and others affected by that development. Its proposed arrival in Caddington and the associated development would also have a major impact on the area and its residents. The proposal to move, associated with these twin development schemes, was therefore a matter of public interest.

The propriety of the Club’s decision-making process and Mr Doyle’s role in that process were also matters of public interest, Warby J said. This was not because the public at large had any proper interest in how the Club conducted its internal affairs, but because a section of the public had a proper interest in the public consequences of the Club’s otherwise internal, private decision-making processes.

As for the reasonable belief requirement under s 4(1)(b), Warby J found that Mr Smith had failed to show that he “reasonably believed that publication of the particular statement was in the public interest”.

The fact was that, having spoken to Mr Doyle on the telephone, Mr Smith had known that Mr Doyle had not read the inaccurate documentation before it went to the members of the Club. Mr Smith might well have thought it “inconceivable” that Mr Doyle did not know, but deciding nonetheless to inform his readers, falsely, that Mr Doyle did know was “a deliberate falsehood” in relation to a critically important part of the offending statement. Therefore, Mr Smith could not rely on the public interest defence.

Warby J held that a “citizen journalist” publishing what purported to be investigative journalism, should still be expected to conform to the requirements established in Reynolds v Times Newspapers Ltd [2001] 2 AC 127 before he could claim the benefit of s 4. Mr Smith had failed to do that. He had not merely suppressed Mr Doyle’s innocent account, but had invented a false confession of guilt and had published that as an accurate version of events, thereby positively deceiving readers. Further, Mr Smith had failed to give Mr Doyle a chance to comment or respond to his article.

Warby J said that whilst he could and should take account of the nature of the publication, i.e. its character as a community news website, it was wrong in principle to give Mr Smith some credit or leeway to reflect his lack of professional skill, training, or expertise.

As for the second article, the question was whether, having regard to its allegedly minimal circulation and other factors, its publication had caused or was likely to cause serious harm to Mr Doyle’s reputation.

Mr Smith had admitted the meaning of the words as pleaded by Mr Doyle, but denied that it had caused serious harm. Warby J disagreed, saying that it “could hardly be described as anything other than seriously harmful to reputation”. The evidence showed that it had been viewed about 70 times. In Warby J’s view, publication on this scale was not trivial or insignificant. The inference of serious reputational harm was therefore properly drawn.

As for damages, Warby J found that, in relation to the first article, the defamatory imputation was unquestionably a serious one and, while the extent of publication had not been large, it had been significant. Warby J was persuaded that Mr Doyle’s feelings had been significantly hurt by Mr Smith’s conduct, including the way that Mr Smith had doggedly persisted in attempting to defend by all manner of means a publication that the judge had concluded was ultimately indefensible. Warby J awarded £30,000 in damages.

As for the second article, Warby J said that the allegation was less serious, less widespread, and had had less impact. Warby J awarded £7,500.

Warby J also granted an injunction to restrain Mr Smith from further publication. Warby J found Mr Smith to be a “careless journalist who acted with a closed mind and in some respects irrationally”. An injunction was appropriate because, as Mr Doyle’s Counsel argued, it was clear from the evidence, “that the Defendant is big-headed, self-satisfied, unrepentant, [and] lacks insight into the harm and distress to which his actions give rise ….”. (Stephen Doyle v Patrick Smith [2018] EWHC 2935 (QB) (2 November 2018) — to read the judgment in full, click here).