Riley v Murray

Riley v Murray

The Tweet's natural and ordinary meaning is that Jeremy Corbyn had been attacked at a mosque, the Claimant had publicly stated he deserved to be violently attacked, and by so doing, the Claimant showed herself to be dangerous and stupid, risking incitement of unlawful violence, and people should not engage with her. The first two elements are statements of fact, the third is opinion. The meaning is defamatory at common law. The context relied on by the Defendant is inadmissible; the Tweet is self-contained. The innuendo meaning adds nothing material.

Parties
Claimant: Rachel Riley; Defendant: Laura Murray
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 April 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Defamation (libel) / Preliminary Issue Trial on Meaning, Fact/opinion, and Defamatory Tendency
Outcome
Findings on preliminary issues: the Tweet conveys the defamatory meaning as set out; statements of fact and opinion identified; meaning is defamatory at common law; context and innuendo arguments rejected.
Legal Topics
Libel, Social Media Publications, Natural and Ordinary Meaning, Fact Vs Opinion, Defamatory Tendency, Context in Defamation
Defamation Media Law Libel Social Media Publications Natural and Ordinary Meaning Fact Vs Opinion Defamatory Tendency Context in Defamation

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 3 Authorities cited 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rachel Riley

Claimant

Laura Murray

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Defamation (libel) / Preliminary Issue Trial on Meaning, Fact/opinion, and Defamatory Tendency

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the natural and ordinary meaning of the Tweet?
  2. 2 Does the Tweet convey a statement of fact or opinion, or both?
  3. 3 Does the Tweet convey a defamatory tendency at common law?

Ratio Decidendi

The Tweet's natural and ordinary meaning is that Jeremy Corbyn had been attacked at a mosque, the Claimant had publicly stated he deserved to be violently attacked, and by so doing, the Claimant showed herself to be dangerous and stupid, risking incitement of unlawful violence, and people should not engage with her. The first two elements are statements of fact, the third is opinion. The meaning is defamatory at common law. The context relied on by the Defendant is inadmissible; the Tweet is self-contained. The innuendo meaning adds nothing material.

Court Disposition

Findings on preliminary issues: the Tweet conveys the defamatory meaning as set out; statements of fact and opinion identified; meaning is defamatory at common law; context and innuendo arguments rejected.