One – nil to Jeremy Vine in libel claim

On the 18 June 2024, ex-professional footballer Joey Barton (by way of a pinned tweet on his X profile (formerly Twitter)), posted an apology to television and radio presenter, Jeremy Vine in respect of several tweets posted by Barton between 8 and 12 January 2024 accusing Vine of having a “sexual interest in children”.

The exchange between Barton and Vine was ignited by a tweet from Barton concerning criticism of women’s’ involvement in men’s football where he called two female commentators “the Fred and Rose West of Football commentary”. Vine reacted to the initial tweet by asking whether Mr Barton had a “brain injury”, resulting in a tirade of tweets by Barton calling him names including a “bike nonce” and making suggestions that the police should be called if Vine was seen in the perimeter of schools.

Within his apology statement, Barton stated “I recognise that this is a very serious allegation. It is untrue. I do not believe Mr Vine has a sexual interest in children and I wish to set the record straight…. I have agreed not to make the same allegations again about Mr Vine and I apologise to him for the distress he has suffered. To resolve his claims against me in defamation and harassment, I have agreed to pay Mr Vine £75,000 in damages and his legal costs.”

What did the Court say about the tweets?

This statement comes after Mrs Justice Steyn DBE handed down her judgment on the 24 May 2024. The hearing, which took place in the High Court on the 9 May 2024, was to determine several preliminary issues including determining the “natural and ordinary meaning” of words used by Barton within social media posts towards Vine and whether the meaning of these words could be considered defamatory.

At the hearing, the Vine’s legal team argued that the meaning conveyed by Barton’s tweets included that the Vine has a sexual interest in children, which in circumstances “leads him to defend paedophiles”. Barton’s legal team on the other hand argued that this was not the case, merely that this was “vulgar abuse” and alternatively the meaning was that Vine was a “stupid or worthless person…”.

Considering approximately fourteen tweets made by Barton, Justice Steyn stated that, “the question is, whether the abusive language, in the context of the publication as a whole, conveys more than insult, and if so, what is the defamatory meaning”.

Ultimately, Vine came out victorious with Justice Steyn ruling that ten of the tweets complained of were defamatory in nature, rejecting the argument that these statements were merely vulgar abuse. Within her rationale, Justice Steyn stated that “The hypothetical reader would not have gained the impression that this was meaningless incentive hurled in the heat of the moment.”

What is the position in England and Wales regarding defamation?

Defamation is a tort which relates to the publication of statements which have caused or are likely to cause serious harm to a person’s reputation. There is no statutory definition of defamation, however the key elements are;

• a statement is made, and the words complained of are defamatory;
• the statement must be published;
• the publication must refer to the claimant; and
• the statement made cannot be proved to be true or excusable by any other legal defence.

Section 1 of the Defamation Act 2013 (DA 2013) introduced a threshold requirement in respect of serious harm, stating that a statement is not defamatory unless “it’s a publication has caused or is likely to cause serious harm to the reputation of the claimant.” It goes on to state that where statements are made against a body which trades for profit, a statement is not defamatory unless it has caused, or is likely to cause, “serious financial loss”.

There are various defences available to a defendant in such claims include: -

• The defendant can prove the statement made is substantially true;
• The statement was an honest opinion; and
• The statement was, or formed part of, a statement on a matter of public interest (and the defendant reasonably believed that publishing this was in the public interest).

In terms of remedies available for successful defamation claims, these include damages (including compensatory damages for any distress and loss caused by the libel as well as potential special damages for actual pecuniary loss and potential additional damages based on the defendant’s behaviour), injunctions (for example to prevent publication or prevent any further publication of a statement), and orders from the court for statements to be removed or to cease the distribution of defamatory statements.

What’s next?

Despite Barton claiming that this was the end of the matter, it appears that this may not be the case. The £75,000 plus legal costs which Barton refers to appear to be a settlement in respect of only some of the statements made against Vine.

Following the apology, Vine made a statement on his twitter profile claiming that this was not the end and that a parallel action has been brought in respect of further tweets made by Barton. Barton may face further damages claims, as well as legal fees and another public apology.

It is likely that this is not the last we will hear about this very public spat and is a reminder of the consequences which may arise from the publishing of defamatory statements online.