Doyle v Smith

What the court held

The first libel trial in which a blogger / citizen journalist relied on the statutory public-interest defence in s.4 of the Defamation Act 2013. Warby J rejected the defence: the defendant had no reasonable belief that publishing the defamatory statements was in the public interest, having failed to verify the allegations or seek comment. Amateur publishers invoking s.4 are judged by the same objective standards of pre-publication conduct as professional journalists, and there is normally no public interest in the internal affairs of a private members' club. The claimant recovered £37,500 in damages plus an injunction.

Key rulings

• The s.4 public-interest defence turns on the defendant's reasonable belief, at the time of publication, that publishing the statement complained of was in the public interest.
• Bloggers and non-professional journalists relying on s.4 are held to the same objective standards of responsible pre-publication conduct as professional journalists.
• There is normally no public interest in the internal workings of a private members' or sports club.
• The s.1 serious-harm threshold must be satisfied for each statement sued upon.

Topics

Related cases (citator)

How this case connects to others in the landmark set — lines of authority, statutory supersession, and companion rulings.

• Serafin v Malkiewicz [2020] UKSC 23

  Both interpret the s.4 Defamation Act 2013 public-interest defence.

• Reynolds v Times Newspapers Ltd [2001] 2 AC 127

  Doyle applies s.4, the statutory successor to the Reynolds responsible-journalism defence.

Acts cited

• Defamation Act 2013

Authoritative source