Richard Stewart Taylor v Pathe Productions Limited & Ors

The natural and ordinary meaning of the Film;

Whether the meaning determined is defamatory of the claimant at common law.

Whether and to what extent the meaning determined is a statement of fact or opinion.

If and insofar as the publication complained of is an expression of opinion, whether the Film indicated, in general or specific terms, the basis of the opinion.

“The ordinary and natural meaning of words may be either the literal meaning or it may be an implied or inferred or an indirect meaning: any meaning that does not require the support of extrinsic facts passing beyond general knowledge but is a meaning which is capable of being detected in the language used can be a part of the ordinary and natural meaning of words. …. The ordinary and natural meaning may therefore include any implication or inference which a reasonable reader guided not by any special but only by general knowledge and not fettered by any strict legal rules of construction would draw from the words.” per Lord Morris at 1370-1371.

The governing principle is reasonableness.

The intention of the publisher is irrelevant.

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 non-defamatory 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.

Over-elaborate analysis should be avoided and the court should certainly not take a too literal approach to the task.

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.

Any meaning that emerges as the produce of some strained, or forced, or utterly unreasonable interpretation should be rejected.

It follows that it is not enough to say that by some person or another the words might be understood in a defamatory sense.

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 (eg bane and antidote cases).

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.

No evidence, beyond publication complained of, is admissible in determining the natural and ordinary meaning.

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.

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.

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).”

“With a broadcast such as this, this is not a matter of studying the transcript, which cannot tell you how the words are spoken, in what tone, or with what emphasis. It means watching and listening to the interview as a whole, bearing in mind that the ordinary viewer will do so only once. The court should avoid over-elaborate analysis and give weight to its own impression”. [18]

It starts looking at Ms Langley’s life. The viewer is told that she has ME and sees that she is unhappy at work and has been overlooked by her boss.

Ms Langley is then seen going to see a performance of Shakespeare’s Richard III with one of her children. The play triggers something in Ms Langley.

Ms Langley then immerses herself in the world of Richard III. She reads many books on the subject, becomes an active member of the local Richard III Society and is also shown attending an academic lecture. She follows up on leads and speaks with people knowledgeable on the subject. She is portrayed as becoming somewhat obsessed, with her ex-husband telling her that she was “starting to sound slightly mad”.

From this research, the Film shows that Ms Langley believed that Richard III might have been buried in the precincts of the former Greyfriars Church in Leicester. She is shown wandering the streets of Leicester, ending up in a local authority car park, and it is made clear to the viewer that Ms Langley has a feeling, or sense, that this is where Richard III’s remains might be found.

The Film then turns to Richard Buckley, an archaeologist. When he is first introduced in the Film, he works for the University. He meets Ms Langley. He is polite but it is apparent that he is not particularly interested in what she has to say. The viewer is told that Mr Buckley was about to give Ms Langley the brush off. However, he changes his mind when the University withdraws his funding, and he revisits Ms Langley’s proposal out of financial necessity.

The claimant’s character Mr Taylor first features an hour or so into the Film. Ms Langley attends a meeting at the local council and asks for £35,000 in funding. Whilst the meeting’s chair is sympathetic to Ms Langley, others, in particular the character Mr Taylor, are shown as being sceptical about what she had to say.

Immediately afterwards, the chair tells Ms Langley that Leicestershire Promotions has agreed to provide all the funding sought.

This funding is later withdrawn. Ms Langley is left to fund the project herself. She is shown raising the money through a crowd funding campaign and the assistance of the Richard III Society and her family.

This funding allows Ms Langley to commission Mr Buckley and his team to start work on the dig.

The character Mr Taylor is then shown turning up at the dig with a film crew, explaining to the crew that it was the University that was “leading” the search for Richard III. The viewer sees Ms Langley challenge this, pointing out that she is leading the search, with the University contributing a small amount of funding at the last minute. As she walks off, the character Mr Taylor is shown making a comment about Ms Langley to his assistant: “someone is getting a little too big for their fancy boots”.

During a later scene, also at the dig, Mr Buckley tells Ms Langley that they have found some bones. There is then a conversation between them about where to focus the remainder of the search, given the limited budget. Later, Ms Langley goes with her intuition and decides – as the client – that she wants Mr Buckley to explore a specific trench, against his advice.

The viewer then sees that Ms Langley was right. Mr Buckley and his team find further bones, which are believed to be of Richard III.

Straightaway, the viewer sees the character Mr Taylor turn up on site, with a film crew. He is then joined by the Vice Chancellor of the University. There is a conversation between Buckley and the character Mr Taylor, where Mr Taylor says “we’re playing catch up now”. Mr Buckley challenges the claimant’s use of the word “we”, pointing out that the University had pulled Mr Buckley’s funding. The claimant replies by suggesting that it is a “very fluid situation” and that things will change, and are changing very rapidly.

The University then arranges a major press conference following the discovery of Richard III’s remains. We see posters proclaiming that the University had found him. The viewer sees Ms Langley attend in the belief that she will be involved in the conference, only to find the running order had been settled by the University without reference to her. Mr Taylor introduces Mr Buckley as the conference’s first speaker. Ms Langley is shown sitting in press rows, whilst the University takes credit for the discovery. Afterwards, we see Mr Buckley say to Mr Taylor that Ms Langley should have been on the podium, something that is dismissed by Mr Taylor.

After the press conference, Ms Langley approaches the character Mr Taylor. He is shown trying to avoid her. He apologises for the seating plan. Ms Langley then challenges him on plans for the burial, making clear that the tomb needs to have the royal coat of arms. I will return to this part of the Film later in this judgment, as it is particularly contentious.

The Film then wraps up with the reinternment. The character Mr Taylor is shown to play a prominent role, in contrast to Ms Langley who was shown sitting in a pew. That evening, there was a celebratory banquet. The character Mr Taylor is again shown to take centre stage. Ms Langley was not present but is shown instead attending at a school to give a talk about what happened.

The Claimant dishonestly misrepresented the facts concerning the search for and discovery of Richard III’s remains to the media and the public. He did so by deviously manipulating the public presentation of information about the find, so as unjustly to conceal Philippa Langley’s true role, and to take credit that was rightfully hers, for himself and the University of Leicester.

The Claimant consistently behaved in a dismissive, patronising and misogynistic way towards Ms Langley.

The Claimant wrongly set out to frustrate a condition set by Ms Langley for Richard III’s reburial, that the tomb show a royal coat of arms in order to acknowledge that he had been a legitimate king, not a usurper. However, the Claimant again acted in a devious and manipulative way in order to frustrate Ms Langley by ignoring her emails on the subject and arranging for the University of Leicester to gain control over Richard Buckley by re-employing him and granting him a doctorate for no other apparent reason than to ensure his cooperation with the University, to control the reburial and prevent a royal coat of arms being placed on his tomb. In explaining why this decision had been reached to Ms Langley, the Claimant behaved in a deeply unpleasant and disablist manner by publicly mimicking Richard III’s “hunchback” and equating his physical deformity with his wickedness/moral failings.

The Claimant acting on behalf of the University, publicly exaggerated the University’s role in searching for and locating Richard III’s remains, and marginalised Ms Langley’s role despite her major contribution to the find.

At times the Claimant’s conduct towards Ms Langley in relation to (a) was unduly dismissive and patronising.

The relevant context is the “good versus bad” narrative which runs through the Film – with Ms Langley as the “gutsy underdog heroine struggling against opposition” and the claimant as the “arrogant villain”, who not only takes steps to make sure that people do not know about Ms Langley’s role but takes the credit which was rightfully hers for himself and the University, causing the public to be misled and for Langley to be wrongly “airbrushed from history”.

In the first scene involving the claimant, he is presented as a “suited bean-counter”. He scoffs at some of Ms Langley’s answers, ridicules her for referring to her feelings, and then talks over her.

After Ms Langley leaves the room, the claimant says that the character Mr Taylor was shown as being dismissive of the project:

The meeting chair then comes out of the meeting to inform Ms Langley that Leicestershire Promotions would be funding the project, but advises her not to mention her “feelings” again: “People love to use that as a stick to beat you with, especially if you’re a woman”. The claimant says this is a reference to what the character Mr Taylor had said, and shows sexism on part of the claimant and his dismissive and patronising approach towards Ms Langley.

In the second scene involving the claimant, when the dig starts, the theme of the claimant wrongly taking credit away from Ms Langley is introduced. It would have been apparent to viewers that he was doing so dishonestly, knowing that the University had not been involved with the funding. The character Mr Taylor was also shown using a dismissive tone towards Ms Langley.

In the third scene involving the claimant, the viewer sees the claimant “marching at speed” past Ms Langley looking for Mr Buckley, who was late. The claimant says the viewer soon learns how the claimant will manipulate this “fluid situation”, and that he is the obvious architect of the University’s PR bid to portray the find falsely as being the work of the University.

The fourth scene involving the claimant is the press conference. This was the key dramatic event used to portray and to emphasise the mistreatment of Ms Langley, where the claimant was “shown to be his most villainous”. The claimant is shown to have organised the event, presenting University staff as the ones responsible for the find, and denying Ms Langley any credit or acknowledgement for it. It is said Mr Buckley looked embarrassed when Ms Langley asked him who was chairing the event. The claimant says the viewer would be shocked, if not outraged, that Langley was not on the podium and would appreciate that this was all down to the claimant and the University.

The Film then shows Mr Buckley challenging the claimant about Ms Langley’s exclusion. The claimant replies “Don’t go off piste, the world’s press are here. It’s about putting you and the University front and centre”, to which Mr Buckley replies “At least I’ve got the good grace to feel guilty”. The claimant says this tells the viewer that the claimant had been instrumental in ensuring that Ms Langley did not get the credit she deserves.

There is then the conversation between the character Mr Taylor and Ms Langley, which I will consider separately.

At the reinternment/burial, the Film showed Ms Langley to be sidelined, in contrast with the role played by the claimant, who was front and centre in the procession, and later he enters the banquet with others to standing ovation and applause, accepting the glory.

Taken as a whole, the Film showed the claimant’s mission as being to “steal” the credit for Ms Langley’s decisive role, and the way he did this was dishonest, leading to the public being deceived. He was the Svengali. Whilst he was employed by the University, the Film showed that he was the one taking decisions, and responsible for his misdeeds. It showed him treating Langley in an abominable way.

The Film made clear on a number of occasions that the University was not contributing any money towards the project, including immediately after the funding meeting, when the funding was then withdrawn, when Ms Langley spoke with Mr Buckley about his future involvement, and when Ms Langley raised funds herself to remedy the funding issue.

The claimant was shown as being dishonest because it would be apparent to viewers that he was aware that the University’s involvement was marginal, that Buckley had been sacked, and that Langley had led the dig. The viewer would have understood that the claimant knew what he was doing when he misrepresented the position.

The claimant’s pleaded case is that viewers would have believed the allegations made against the claimant because (i) the Film was presented as a true account of events; (ii) even making allowance for the need to condense events into a cohesive film, the viewer would not expect the Film to state matters to be true which were not true; (iii) the claimant’s real name was used in the Film, and he was in fact the principal point of contact between Ms Langley and the University.

Finally, the claimant says that in all the scenes showing the claimant and Ms Langley, he was seen to be dismissive and patronising. He was as bad at the start of the Film as at the end.

The dominant perspective of the Film is that of Ms Langley, who plays a role close to a narrator. The Film starts by saying it is based on a true story, her story. Ms Langley is depicted as experiencing visions of Richard III throughout the Film, assisting in the depiction of Ms Langley’s thought processes.

The Film explores several key themes, which would drift past the viewer. These include the contrast between professional and amateur, between reason alone and reason harnessed to instinct, and the priority given by the University to its commercial interests at the expense of giving Ms Langley sufficient credit.

The defendants do not accept the claimant’s “saint and sinner” narrative. The Film represents Ms Langley as a flawed and complex character who is not easy to deal with, being unwell, under serious stress, prone to delusional episodes and bordering on the obsessive. She is not right about everything, nor reasonable about everything. The defendants say she is also depicted as “emotional, lacking confidence and requiring constant reassurance from her husband.” On the other hand, she is also shown as intelligent, determined and dogged with an instinctive gift.

The Film represents Ms Langley as infatuated with Richard III and his innocence, and her correctness on various contentious historical issues. It shows that she is not easy to deal with on these issues.

In the first scene with the claimant, it shows the claimant and others being sceptical about Ms Langley’s proposal, theories and feelings. The claimant was shown being cynical about amateurs, and questioning spending. The hypothetical reasonable viewer would have seen Ms Langley pitch on the basis of “feeling” and so would see that she has an “emotional dynamic”. The viewer would realise that Mr Taylor’s reaction was driven by scepticism of amateurs and instinct.

In the second and third scenes with the claimant, at the dig site, the claimant’s clear motive was to exploit the discovery to further the University’s commercial interests, not to take personal credit. The viewer would understand that the claimant sees the University as a business.

The hypothetical reasonable viewer would not consider the claimant’s treatment of Ms Langley in isolation but would take into account her wider character and relations with others. The claimant’s actions in side-lining Langley are shown to be motivated by the fact she is portrayed as sometimes prickly and dogmatic. The viewer would understand that the decision to exclude her was in the context of her controversial views and tendency to be blunt and forthright.

There is no room for hyperbolic adverbs “dishonestly” and “deviously”. The claimant is shown to be upfront that his world is one where commercial opportunities must be maximised. The side-lining criticism is the “abiding and central criticism” of the claimant and the University. This side-lining is overt, unattractive and unfair, but neither dishonest nor devious.

Where the Film does include criticism of the claimant, the court must consider whether this amounts to a general criticism of him, or only relates to his behaviour in the particular situation shown.

Ms Langley’s boss, who is not portrayed positively. He clearly side-lines Ms Langley, and the viewer is made aware of possible reasons for this, including Ms Langley’s chronic fatigue, her age and her gender.

An arrogant parent at the play, who is very dismissive of Ms Langley’s views – not because she was a woman, but because she was expressing views that were at odds with those underpinning the play. I do not think the hypothetical reasonable viewer would see this as an example of a man treating someone badly because she is a woman – it rather shows Ms Langley being fanatical and challenging the entrenched orthodoxy.

Mr Buckley – who was shown to be dismissive of Ms Langley’s original proposal, stroppy when she determined the dig priorities, and opportunistic in allowing the University to take the credit for the find. There is no suggestion that this poor treatment was because of Ms Langley’s gender. In the first two circumstances, this appears to have been because Ms Langley was an amateur, and in the third, this was shown as being because of self-interest. The fact that Mr Buckley was sceptical that Richard III was buried in the car park, and was more interested in finding the Greyfriars Church, seems perfectly understandable and is not evidence of Ms Langley being treated poorly by Mr Buckley because of her gender.

Academic RR Lawrence – Ms Langley challenges him during a lecture, putting across views that were supportive of Richard III, and Mr Lawrence is shown putting her down, highlighting the fact that she is not an academic.

C: “Philippa! How are you? Sorry about the seating”.

PL: “You haven’t responded to my emails – what’s happening with the burial?”

C: “Oh the tomb? Have you seen the design? Very striking. I’ll get them to email it to you.”

PL: “It needs to have a royal coat of arms on it. That’s very important. A proper acknowledgment of who he was. A sign of respect.”

C: “Yeah I think this was discussed by the burial committee and they didn’t think that a coat of arms was the correct protocol.”

PL: “Sorry why not?”

C: “The committee felt that the physical evidence gathered from the dig – the hunched spine and so on - does tend to support the historical view that Richard was a usurper.” C pulls a hunchback gesture.

[… other matters… walks off, but PL moves around and stands in his path]

PL: “He was not a usurper. And the diagnosis was scoliosis, curvature of the spine not a hunchback.”

C: “Well the committee felt that the condition - whatever its precise label – does suggest that there is more truth to Shakespeare’s account of Richard’s life than perhaps you and your supporters would like to admit to?”

C moves off. PL speaks loudly, and others start paying attention

PL: “So twisted spine equals twisted personality does it?”

C: “No, no no – that’s not what the committee is saying. Let’s just calm down.”

PL: “He was a legitimate king and his right to a royal coat of arms on his tomb is unarguable. I will fight you all the way on this Richard.”

C: “Well, the decision of the burial rests with the holder of the exhumation licence which, through Richard Buckley, is the University of Leicester.”

PL: “I thought you fired him?”

C “We reinstated him. And we’ve awarded him a doctorate.”

PL: “when did that happen?”

C: “Quite recently”.

PL “I specified a royal coat of Arms on his tomb as a condition of his reburial – but Richard Buckley didn’t include it on the exhumation licence!”

C: “Well that is unfortunate for you.”

“… when determining whether the words complained of contain allegations of fact or opinion, the court will be guided by the following points:

The statement must be recognisable as comment, as distinct from an imputation of fact.

Opinion is something which is or can reasonably be inferred to be a deduction, inference, conclusion, criticism, remark, observation, etc.

The ultimate question is how the word would strike the hypothetical reasonable reader. The subject matter and context of the words may be an important indicator of whether they are fact or opinion.

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.

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.”

“Although an inference may amount to a statement of opinion, the bare statement of an inference, without reference to the facts on which it is based, may well appear as a statement of fact: see Kemsley v Foot [1952] AC 345. As Sharp LJ, DBE, pointed out in Butt at [37], not every inference counts as an opinion; context is all. Put simply, the more clearly a statement indicates that it is based on some extraneous material, the more likely it is to strike the reader as an expression of opinion.”

The claimant knowingly misrepresented facts to the media and the public concerning the search for, and discovery of, Richard III’s remains. He did so by presenting a false account of the University’s role in the project, and marginalising Ms Langley’s role, despite her major contribution to the find.

The claimant’s conduct towards Ms Langley in respect of the project was smug, unduly dismissive and patronising.

“At common law, a meaning is defamatory and therefore actionable if it satisfies two requirements.

The first, known as “the consensus requirement”, is that the meaning must be one that “tends to lower the claimant in the estimation of right-thinking people generally.” The Judge has to determine “whether the behaviour or views that the offending statement attributes to a claimant are contrary to common, shared values of our society”: Monroe v Hopkins [2017] EWHC 433 (QB), [2017] 4 WLR 68 [51].

The second requirement is known as the “threshold of seriousness”. To be

defamatory, the imputation must be one that would tend to have a substantially

adverse effect” on the way that people would treat the claimant: Thornton v Telegraph Media Group Ltd [2010] EWHC 1414 (QB), [2011] 1 WLR 1985 [98] (Tugendhat J)”