Simon Bard Parkes v Toby Hall & Anor.
[2023] EWHC 794 (KB)
Chris Packham CBE v Dominic Wightman & Ors.
25 May 2023
[2023] EWHC 1256 (KB)
High Court
A famous nature presenter sued two people for lying about him. The court sided with the presenter because the other two didn't do their research and were just trying to get him in trouble, not tell the truth.
Key Facts
- •Chris Packham (Claimant) sued Dominic Wightman, Nigel Bean, and Paul Read (Defendants) for defamation over articles published on Country Squire Magazine (CSM) and social media.
- •The case involved three allegations: fraudulent fundraising for rescued circus tigers (Circus Big Cats Allegation), concealing insurance payments (Insurance Allegation), and falsely stating Muirburn practices burn peat (Muirburn Allegation).
- •Defendants initially relied on truth and public interest defenses, but later abandoned some.
- •Defendant Read (D3) significantly altered his defense, denying responsibility for publication.
- •The court heard evidence from Packham, his partner, a witness from an animal rescue charity, and the Defendants.
- •Expert evidence was presented on tiger welfare and peat burning, but the court found it limited in relevance.
Legal Principles
Defamation requires proof of publication causing serious harm to reputation.
Defamation Act 2013, section 1(1)
A statement is substantially true if the imputation conveyed is true, some latitude is given for exaggeration.
Defamation Act 2013, section 2(1)
Publication on a matter of public interest requires reasonable belief that publishing was in public interest, considering editorial judgment.
Defamation Act 2013, section 4
A person is responsible for publication if they were the author, editor, or publisher as defined in the Defamation Act 1996.
Defamation Act 1996, section 1
Outcomes
Packham's claims against Wightman and Bean succeeded for the Circus Big Cats Allegation.
The court found Packham's statements were not knowingly false, and the Defendants failed to prove substantial truth or a reasonable public interest defense; they pursued an agenda rather than investigation.
Packham's claims against Wightman and Bean for the Insurance and Muirburn Allegations succeeded.
The Defendants failed to establish truth or reasonable public interest defenses; allegations were made without proper investigation.
Packham's claims against Read were dismissed.
Read was not an editor or publisher of the articles and failed to show serious harm from retweets.