Charles Northcott v David Hundeyin
[2024] EWHC 2704 (KB)
Jack Aaronson aka Dominic Ford v Marcus Stones aka Mickey Taylor
13 October 2023
[2023] EWHC 2399 (KB)
High Court
Someone falsely accused someone else of being a serial rapist online. A court said the accuser was wrong and had to pay the accused a lot of money and stop making the false claims.
Key Facts
- •Claimant (Jack Aaronson, aka Dominic Ford) sued Defendant (Marcus Stones, aka Mickey Taylor) for libel.
- •Defendant made serious accusations on Twitter and YouTube that Claimant was a serial rapist.
- •Allegations stemmed from a disagreement between the parties on an unrelated issue.
- •Claimant is a US citizen, openly gay, and works in the gay pornography industry.
- •Defendant is a UK citizen and a student, formerly in the adult entertainment industry.
- •The publications included multiple tweets and a YouTube interview.
- •Defendant pleaded truth and public interest defenses.
- •The main witness for the defense was Cooper Tennent (aka Tannor Reed), who alleged rape by the Claimant.
Legal Principles
A statement is defamatory if it imputes conduct lowering the claimant's estimation and crosses a threshold of seriousness.
Allen v Times Newspapers [2019] EWHC 1235 (QB), [19]
The court identifies the natural and ordinary meaning of words as a reasonable reader would understand them.
Koutsogiannis v The Random House Group Limited [2020] 4 WLR 25, [11-13]
In libel claims, serious harm to reputation must be proven; it's a matter of fact, considering the words' inherent tendency and actual impact.
Lachaux v Independent Print Ltd [2020] AC 612
The defence of truth requires proving the imputation conveyed by the statement is substantially true; minor inaccuracies do not defeat the defence.
Section 2 of the Defamation Act 2013; Turcu v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2005] EWHC 799 (QB), [105]
The public interest defence requires showing the statement was on a matter of public interest and the defendant reasonably believed publishing it was in the public interest.
Section 4 of the Defamation Act 2013
The meaning of 'rape' includes not only the lack of consent but also the absence of a reasonable belief in consent by the perpetrator.
DPP v Morgan [1976] AC 182; Sexual Offences Act 2003
Outcomes
Judgment for the Claimant.
Defendant failed to prove the truth of the libel and the public interest defense.
Defendant's defense of substantial truth failed.
Insufficient evidence to prove multiple rapes; evidence regarding the alleged rapes of Cooper Tennent was insufficient to meet the standard of proof.
Defendant's public interest defense failed.
Publications were not on a matter of public interest; Defendant's belief in the public interest was not reasonable due to lack of verification and fairness.
Damages awarded to Claimant: £110,000.
Gravity of allegations, scale of publication, Claimant's distress, and Defendant's aggravating conduct.
Injunction granted to Claimant.
To prevent further defamation.