Key Facts
- •Rachel Riley (Claimant) sued Michael Sivier (Defendant) for libel over a blog post alleging she engaged in online abuse.
- •The blog post's meaning was determined as imputing that Riley was a 'serial abuser' who harassed a 16-year-old girl.
- •Sivier's defenses of truth, honest opinion, and public interest were raised; truth and honest opinion were struck out, but the public interest defense proceeded to trial.
- •The trial judge (Steyn J) found for Riley, rejecting Sivier's public interest defense and awarding £50,000 in damages.
- •Sivier appealed the rejection of his public interest defense.
Legal Principles
Public interest defense requires proof that the publication was on a matter of public interest, the defendant believed publication was in the public interest, and this belief was reasonable.
Defamation Act 2013, s. 4
When assessing the reasonableness of a belief under the public interest defense, the court must consider all the circumstances of the case and make appropriate allowance for editorial judgment.
Defamation Act 2013, s. 4(2) and s. 4(4)
Appeals are reviews, not re-runs; appellants must show a serious flaw in the judgment.
Henderson v Foxworth Investments Ltd [2014] UKSC 41
Outcomes
Permission to appeal denied.
The Court of Appeal found no real prospect of success on appeal. Sivier's arguments largely amounted to disagreements with the trial judge's factual findings, which were deemed reasonable. The Judge's rejection of the public interest defense was upheld; her reasoning, including her assessment of Sivier's failure to contact Riley for comment and the lack of reasonable grounds for believing his allegations, was found sound.