Full case report
Charleston & Smith v News Group Newspapers Ltd
Reference  2 AC 65;  2 WLR 450;  2 All ER 313
Court House of Lords
Judge Lords Keith, Bridge, Browne-Wilkinson, Slynn and Lloyd
Date of Judgment 16 Mar 1995
Defamation – Libel – Headline – Photographs – Meaning
Two actors from an Australian soap opera sued a newspaper for defamation arising out of the publication of digitally manipulated images. The newspaper had published an article comprising photographs showing the plaintiff’s faces superimposed on the near- naked bodies of models in pornographic poses. The text made it clear that the photographs had been produced by superimposing the plaintiffs faces on the bodies of others without the knowledge or consent of the plaintiffs and castigated the makers of a pornographic computer game.
Whether the publication of the photographs were capable of bearing a defamatory meaning, whether viewed on their own or with the headlines and captions
A claim for libel could not be founded on a headline or photograph in isolation from the related text. The question of whether an article was defamatory had to be answered by reference to the response of the ordinary, reasonable reader to the entire publication. However, the question of whether the text of an article or a disclaimer was sufficient to neutralise an otherwise defamatory headline or photograph was a matter for the jury. On the facts of the case, no reader could possibly have drawn the inference that the appellants could have been willing participants in the photographs either by posing for them or by giving consent for their faces to be superimposed on the bodies of others.
The practical effect of this decision is that provided an article, headline or caption makes it clear that the image is altered, a claim in defamation is unlikely to succeed. But it is only where the antidote (whether a disclaimer or otherwise) so obviously extinguishes the defamation that no issue could properly be left to the jury that the judge should rule at an interim stage that the article as a whole is not capable of being defamatory.
Andrew Moore & Co for the Claimants; Farrer & Co for the Defendant
More from 5RB
5RB is the pre-eminent set in the area for handling defamation, privacy, contempt and data protection matters. Interviewees praise the set for having great depth and quality of counsel, and note that it boasts many of the top barristers in the field. Get the lowdown here.
New 22nd Edition of Clerk & Lindsell on Torts, published by Sweet & Maxwell. Further info here.