Key Facts
- •Mr. Hay (Claimant) sued Ms. Cresswell (Defendant) for libel over allegations of sexual assault published in June and July 2020.
- •Ms. Cresswell alleged a violent sexual assault by Mr. Hay on May 27-28, 2010.
- •The publications included a blog, Facebook messages, an email, and Instagram posts.
- •Ms. Cresswell defended on grounds of truth and/or publication on a matter of public interest, and to a limited extent, qualified privilege.
- •The central issue was whether Ms. Cresswell proved the sexual assault by Mr. Hay.
- •The court heard evidence from both parties and several witnesses.
Legal Principles
A statement is defamatory if it adversely affects the claimant's reputation.
Thornton v Telegraph Media Group Ltd [2010] EWHC 1414 (QB)
The court determines the single natural and ordinary meaning of defamatory words.
Koutsogiannis v The Random House Group Ltd [2020] 4 WLR 25
A statement is not defamatory unless its publication caused serious harm to the claimant's reputation.
Defamation Act 2013, Section 1
The defence of truth is made out if the defamatory imputation is substantially true.
Defamation Act 2013, Section 2(1)
The defence of publication on a matter of public interest requires the statement to be on a matter of public interest and the defendant to reasonably believe publication was in the public interest.
Defamation Act 2013, Section 4
The Reynolds defence is abolished.
Defamation Act 2013, Section 4(6)
Qualified privilege protects publications made on a duty to communicate and a corresponding interest to receive.
[]
Outcomes
The claim failed.
The court found that the defendant had proved the substantial truth of the sexual assault allegation and also satisfied the public interest defence.