Keays v Guardian Newspapers Ltd. & Ors

Keays v Guardian Newspapers Ltd. & Ors

The article in question, published in the 'Comment' section and responding to widely publicised material, is unmistakably a comment piece. Its allegations about the Claimant's motivation and conduct are inferences and opinions drawn from facts in the public domain, not assertions of verifiable fact. Any reasonable reader would recognise these as comment, and it would be perverse for a jury to classify them as factual. The Defendants are entitled to the protection of the fair comment defence.

Parties
Claimant: Sara Keays; Defendant: Guardian Newspapers Limited; Defendant: Roger Alton; Defendant: Carol Sarler
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
01 July 2003
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interlocutory Application—ruling on Whether Words Complained of Are Comment or Fact in Libel Claim
Outcome
Application granted—words complained of are only capable of being regarded as comment, not fact.
Legal Topics
Libel, Fair Comment Defence, Freedom of Expression, Article 10 ECHR, Trial by Jury in Defamation, Public Interest
Defamation Media Law Human Rights Libel Fair Comment Defence Freedom of Expression Article 10 ECHR Trial by Jury in Defamation +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 7 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sara Keays

Claimant

Guardian Newspapers Limited

Defendant

Roger Alton

Defendant

Carol Sarler

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Interlocutory Application—ruling on Whether Words Complained of Are Comment or Fact in Libel Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the words complained of in the Observer article are capable of being regarded as comment or must be classified as fact for purposes of libel
  2. 2 Whether the Defendants are entitled to the protection of the fair comment defence on a matter of public interest

Ratio Decidendi

The article in question, published in the 'Comment' section and responding to widely publicised material, is unmistakably a comment piece. Its allegations about the Claimant's motivation and conduct are inferences and opinions drawn from facts in the public domain, not assertions of verifiable fact. Any reasonable reader would recognise these as comment, and it would be perverse for a jury to classify them as factual. The Defendants are entitled to the protection of the fair comment defence.

Court Disposition

Application granted—words complained of are only capable of being regarded as comment, not fact.

Orders

  • Defendants' submissions upheld; issue of fact or comment will not proceed to jury trial.