“(a) the actual meanings of the words complained of; (b) whether the words complained of, in the meanings found by the Court, are fact or opinion; and (c) whether the words complained of, in the meanings found by the Court, convey any serious defamatory imputation or imputations concerning the Claimant.”
“For the avoidance of doubt, the preliminary issues do not include the determination of the issue of serious harm.”
“A statement is not defamatory unless its publication has caused or is likely to cause serious harm to the reputation of the claimant”
“…section 1 necessarily means that a statement which would previously have been regarded as defamatory, because of its inherent tendency to cause some harm to reputation, is not to be so regarded unless it “has caused or is likely to cause” harm which is “serious”
“(c) whether the words complained of, in the meanings found by the Court, convey any imputation (or imputations) concerning the Claimant which is (or are) defamatory at common law.”
“i) The governing principle is reasonableness. ii) The intention of the publisher is irrelevant. iii) The hypothetical reasonable reader is not naïve but he is not unduly suspicious. He can read between the lines. He can read in an implication more readily than a lawyer and may indulge in a certain amount of loose thinking but he must be treated as being a man who is not avid for scandal and someone who does not, and should not, select one bad meaning where other non-defamatory meanings are available. A reader who always adopts a bad meaning where a less serious or nondefamatory meaning is available is not reasonable: s/he is avid for scandal. But always to adopt the less derogatory meaning would also be unreasonable: it would be naïve. iv) Over-elaborate analysis should be avoided and the court should certainly not take a too literal approach to the task. v) Consequently, a judge providing written reasons for conclusions on meaning should not fall into the trap of conducting too detailed an analysis of the various passages relied on by the respective parties. vi) Any meaning that emerges as the produce of some strained, or forced, or utterly unreasonable interpretation should be rejected. vii) It follows that it is not enough to say that by some person or another the words might be understood in a defamatory sense. viii) The publication must be read as a whole, and any 'bane and antidote' taken together. Sometimes, the context will clothe the words in a more serious defamatory meaning (for example the classic "rogues' gallery" case). In other cases, the context will weaken (even extinguish altogether) the defamatory meaning that the words would bear if they were read in isolation (e.g. bane and antidote cases). ix) In order to determine the natural and ordinary meaning of the statement of which the claimant complains, it is necessary to take into account the context in which it appeared and the mode of publication. x) No evidence, beyond publication complained of, is admissible in determining the natural and ordinary meaning. xi) The hypothetical reader is taken to be representative of those who would read the publication in question. The court can take judicial notice of facts which are common knowledge, but should beware of reliance on impressionistic assessments of the characteristics of a publication's readership. xii) Judges should have regard to the impression the article has made upon them themselves in considering what impact it would have made on the hypothetical reasonable reader. xiii) In determining the single meaning, the court is free to choose the correct meaning; it is not bound by the meanings advanced by the parties (save that it cannot find a meaning that is more injurious than the claimant's pleaded meaning).”
“In the light, in particular, of principles (v) to (x) and (xii), it is common practice among judges dealing with issues of meaning in defamation claims to read the article complained of and form a provisional view about their meaning, before turning to the parties’ pleaded cases and the arguments about meaning.”
“The Booklet which is attached at Appendix A contained the following words defamatory of the Claimant: (1) In prominent words on the front and back pages: “We are very reliably informed that Mr Ager is currently under investigation for tax and DSS fraud” (2) On the front page and page 3 under the headline “Loving son is internet weirdo who dumped his dying dad” and accompanied by a prominent photograph of the Claimant and a photograph captioned: “Ager left his father to live like this”: “But one of his films is shocking for another reason, it reveals the chairman of a branch of a party which claims to want to make the UK’s welfare system ‘fairer’ abandoned his own father to die in a small grimy flat in a Liverpool slum.”
“and the school failure’s reviews are so controversial – in one he accuses Jesus of being a child molester – which he has endured accusations on the internet of being a paedophile and pervert. But films like his amateurish 31 minute feature, the Sex Game, made in 2004, about a half-naked man held in chains a Liverpool house, suffering sexual abuse and whippings don’t help his protestations. He said of the paedophile accusations: “People were calling me a paedophile, pervert, asshole, idiot, retard, for having written a review. I found it fascinating and amusing that people would lower themselves to such tactics over differences of opinion about a fictional film. His films – which inexplicably he posts links to on children’s websites – carry warnings about their unsavoury content … … Things take a much more worrying light though when you visit a site he hosts for children’s furniture. One link is from a site designed to help autistic children – this leading Liverpool politician has put links to Pulp Fiction, the Big Lebowski, a video of him and his friends wearing grotesque monster masks and even some of his outrageous political comments.” (4) In a series of reproduced tweets on pages 39 to 43 from a twitter account @exposeager: “Kids web sites should NEVER be polluted with horror movies, even if Mr Ager watched them at 7 years old with his father” “Rob Ager Post on the web site Children’s Bedroom Furniture – we are happy to pass full details to law enforcement officers #robager””
“THE FRAUD ALLEGATION”
“There are reasonable grounds to suspect that the Claimant is guilty of tax fraud and benefit fraud.”
“The Claimant was at the time of publication under investigation as to whether or not he had committed tax and/or DSS fraud.”
“In the libel that the House has to consider there is, however, no mention of suspicion at all. What is said is simply that the plaintiff’s affairs are being inquired into. … But a statement that an inquiry is on foot may go further and may positively convey the impression that there are grounds for the inquiry, that is, that there is something to suspect. Just as a bare statement of suspicion may convey the impression that there are grounds for belief in guilt, so a bare statement of the fact of an inquiry may convey the impression that there are grounds for suspicion.”
“In practice a statement that C is under investigation will almost always justify the inference that the police have some basis for suspicion, though there are some situations where an investigation might be automatic (e.g. where a person is killed by police firearms).”
“It is arguable that there is a fourth level, viz. the mere statement that the claimant is being investigated. This may have been the view of Lord Devlin in Lewis at 285-286, who considered that in principle it was defamatory to state that a person had been charged with a crime and acquitted of it.”
“There are some grounds to suspect that the Claimant is guilty of tax fraud and benefit fraud.”
“THE ABANDONMENT ALLEGATION”
“But one of his films is shocking for another reason, it reveals the chairman of branch of a party which claims to want to make the UK’s welfare system ‘fairer’ abandoned his own father to die in a small grimy flat in a Liverpool slum. In an amateurish YouTube video, Rob admits dumping his dying father saying he never visited him. Then he has the cheek to harangue local social services for not offering his alcoholic father any help.”
“The Claimant callously and reprehensibly abandoned his father to die in slum like conditions, and then hypocritically complained about social services not offering his father any help.”
“The Claimant’s failure to ensure that his father was living in minimally decent conditions and being adequately cared for, and his permitting his father to live in squalor until he died, was shocking, and then he had the cheek to harangue social services for not helping his father.”
“The Claimant shockingly abandoned his father to die in squalor, and then hypocritically berated social services for not offering his father any help.”
“And the school failure’s reviews are so controversial – in one he accuses Jesus of being a child molester – which he has endured accusations on the internet of being a paedophile and pervert. But films like his amateurish 21 minute feature, the Sex Game, made in 2004, about a half-naked man held in chains a Liverpool house, suffering sexual abuse and whippings don’t help his protestations. He said of the paedophile accusations: “People were calling me a paedophile, pervert, asshole, idiot, retard, for having written a review. I found it fascinating and amusing that people would lower themselves to such tactics over differences of opinion about a fictional film.”
“Kids web sites should NEVER be poluted with horror movies, even if Mr Ager watched them at 7 years old with his father.”
“Rob Ager Post on the web site Children’s Bedroom Furniture – we are happy to pass full details to law enforcement officers #robager”
“There are reasonable grounds to suspect the Claimant is a paedophile or otherwise acts inappropriately in a criminal manner towards children in that he posts links to his obscene films showing scenes of bondage, incarceration and flagellation, along with horror film reviews on children’s websites, and hosts a Children’s Bedroom Furniture website for that very purpose.”
“(4) Following the Claimant’s controversial reviews of films such as Clockwork Orange and Hellraiser, and one review in which he had made the accusation against Jesus of child molestation, he had endured accusations on the internet of being a paedophile, pervert, asshole, idiot and retard. However, the unsavoury content of his strange ‘gimp’ films which he directed and starred in, showing sick scenes of bondage, incarceration and flagellation, like one called the Sex Game about a half-naked man held in chains in a house, suffering sexual abuse and whippings, did not help his protestations that others were indulging in the tactics of accusing him of these things, simply for having written reviews which had given rise to differences of opinion about a fictional film. (5) It was inexplicable and worrying that the Claimant had posted links to his films (including a video of him and his friends wearing grotesque monster masks and some of his outrageous political comments) on children’s websites (one of which he hosted) with warnings of their unsavoury content, and also other well-known films designed for an adult audience (Pulp Fiction and The Big Lebowski). (6) It was legitimate for a person to be happy to pass on full details of these postings by the Claimant to law enforcement officers for investigation concerning any possible breach of the law of any kind.”
“Rob Ager, who claims to have invented his own education system for children, stars in and directs ‘gimp’ films showing sick scenes of bondage, incarceration and flagellation. He also enjoys parading around his lounge in shocking animated monster masks. Rob, aged 31, who came out of the shadows to take on the chairmanship of his local branch of UKIP recently also spends up to fifteen hours at a time writing bizarre sexual-laden reviews of banned and unsavoury horror films such as Clockwork Orange and Hellraiser, picking through the most shocking scenes with seedy relish.”
“Rob Ager, who claims to have invented his own education system for children, stars in and directs ‘gimp’ films showing sick scenes of bondage, incarceration and flagellation. He also enjoys parading around his lounge in shocking animated monster masks. Rob, aged 31, who came out of the shadows to take on the chairmanship of his local branch of UKIP recently also spends up to fifteen hours at a time writing bizarre sexual-laden reviews of banned and unsavoury horror films such as Clockwork Orange and Hellraiser, picking through the most shocking scenes with seedy relish.”
“The Claimant inappropriately posts on children’s websites, including a Children’s Bedroom Furniture website which he hosts, links to his films showing sickening scenes of bondage, incarceration and flagellation, with warnings of their unsavoury content, along with a video of him and his friends wearing grotesque monster masks, links to other inappropriate adult films such as Pulp Fiction and The Big Lebowski, and even some of his outrageous political comments. This is inexplicable and worrying.”
“…when determining whether the words complained of contain allegations of fact or opinion, the Court will be guided by the following points: i) The statement must be recognisable as comment, as distinct from an imputation of fact. ii) Opinion is something which is or can reasonably be inferred to be a deduction, conclusion, criticism, remark, observation, etc. iii) The ultimate question is how the word would strike the ordinary reasonable reader. The subject matter and context of the words may be an important indicator of whether they are fact or opinion. iv) Some statements which are, by their nature and appearance opinion, are nevertheless treated as statements of fact where, for instance, the opinion implies that a claimant has done something but does not indicate what that something is, i.e. the statement is a bare comment. v) Whether an allegation that someone has acted “dishonestly” or “criminally” is an allegation of fact or expression of opinion will very much depend upon context. There is no fixed rule that a statement that someone has been dishonest must be treated as an allegation of fact.”