Page 46 - Law and the Media

Defamation
dangerous. In 1982 the Sunday People carried a front-page story about footballer Justin
Fashanu under the banner headline ‘I am not gay’. The article revealed that rumours about
Fashanu’s sexuality had been circulating among his team mates. His denial when asked by
the People’s reporter did not legitimize publication of the rumour to millions of newspaper
readers who had never heard of it before. The case was settled at the time by payment to
Fashanu of substantial damages, although he admitted several years later that he was, in
fact, gay.

When the New Statesman reported rumours in 1993 that were circulating around
Westminster and Fleet Street that the Prime Minister, John Major, had enjoyed a ‘secret
affair’ with a caterer called Claire Latimer, both Major and Latimer issued writs against the
magazine publishers, printers and distributors. The magazine publisher asserted that it had
not given any credence to the rumours, which it accepted were untrue, but the printers and
distributors quickly accepted liability and paid Major and Latimer damages. As it turned
out, Major and Latimer decided not to pursue their claim for damages against the magazine
publishers.

However, each case depends on its facts, and the Court of Appeal has held that the repetition
of rumours without checking can be justifiable in some circumstances (Aspro Travel v
Owners Abroad Group (1996)).

Innuendo or implication
The law recognizes that in certain circumstances a statement will convey suggestions or
imputations over and above their natural and ordinary meaning. This may be because a word
or phrase has a technical or slang meaning or because of extrinsic facts known by some of
the people to whom the story has been published. In circumstances where the statement has
a defamatory meaning that is not obvious to all recipients, the claimant can allege innuendo.
It is up to the claimant to prove that at least one recipient of the statement had the necessary
special knowledge to understand the innuendo (Fulham v Newcastle and Journal Ltd
(1977)). The court must decide how the ordinary, reasonable person with that special
knowledge would understand the statement.

It is not difficult to think of examples of extraneous matters that convey derogatory
imputations to some but not to others. In Cassidy v Daily Mirror Newspapers Ltd (1929) the
newspaper published a photograph of Cassidy with a woman who it reported was Cassidy’s
fianc´ee. Cassidy was in fact married to another woman, although they lived apart. The
defamatory implication of the report to whoever knew of the marriage was that Mrs Cassidy
was not, as she purported to be, Cassidy’s wife but rather his mistress. Mrs Cassidy sued and
was awarded £500. In Tolley v JS Fry & Sons Ltd (1931) a famous amateur golfer appeared
on an advertisement with a Fry’s chocolate bar sticking out of his pocket. He had not given
permission for his likeness to be used in that way. He sued for libel on the basis that there
were a number of people who knew of his amateur status and would believe he was abusing
this by becoming involved in commercial sponsorship in circumstances where the rules of
amateur golf forbid the commercial endorsing of products.
9