Take 10 - 1 August 2025

Welcome to RPC's Media and Communications law update. This month's edition on key media developments and the latest cases.

Joint defamation and personal injury trial for Crispin Odey next year

Last Friday, Mrs Justice Heather Williams directed that the £79m libel claim brought by Crispin Odey against the Financial Times, over articles in 2023 accusing him of sexual misconduct, is to be tried together with five personal injury actions brought against Mr Odey by women who allege he sexually assaulted them.  In support of its defence of truth to the libel claim, the FT relies on the evidence of 15 women, five of whom are the personal injury claimants.  In an oral judgment Williams J held that a joint trial was the only option of avoiding the undesirable prospect of the women potentially having to give evidence twice at two separate trials (of the section 2 truth defence and of the personal injury claims). She agreed to defer the determination of the quantum of Mr Odey's special damages claim to a subsequent trial (if necessary) and the Court will consider later this year whether or not any issues relating to damages in the personal injury claims should also be deferred. Otherwise, both sets of cases will be tried in full (including the FT's section 4 public interest defence) in a five-week trial next June/July. RPC represent the FT.

High Court dismisses GDPR challenge of the use of Claimants’ data in personal injury litigation

The High Court has dismissed claims brought by three individuals in Yesim Kul & Ors v DWF Law LLP [2025] EWHC 1824 (KB) who alleged that DWF Law LLP (DWF) had breached their data protection rights by including their names in a spreadsheet (JS1) which analysed patterns across a certain group of road traffic accident (RTA) claims in support of an insurer defendant's application to dismiss such claims for fundamental dishonesty. The claimants considered that using their names as opposed to pseudonymised identifiers was an unnecessary and disproportionate use of their data [38-40]. DWF accepted that it was a data controller and had processed personal and special category data without the claimants’ consent, but maintained that the processing was necessary for the defence of the legal claims and for its clients’ legitimate interests [43]. Mrs Justice Jennifer Eady DBE found that using the claimants’ names was necessary at the point of disclosure to ensure clarity and enable verification given the prevalence of shared surnames and initials amongst the claimants, and noted that once the document had been filed with the court and an alternative means of identifying the claimants was agreed DWF pseudonymised the data [109]. The court did not consider the claimants’ Article 8 ECHR rights or the special status of child data (in the case of C2) to outweigh the legitimate interests of the defendant’s clients as the Article 9(2)(f) exception (processing for establishing or defending legal claims) applied [97]. No breach was found of transparency and fairness requirements given the limited scope of the disclosure (only to the court and their own solicitors) and the fact it had not detrimentally impacted the claimants, nor was there any breach of the right to erasure, as the legal claims exemption under Article 17(3) also applied [102].

Family court judgments concerning children of Constance Marten and Mark Gordon are made public

Following a joint application by several media outlets in 2024, the family court will publish judgments concerning the children of Constance Marten and Mark Gordon in light of their convictions for gross negligence manslaughter of their newborn daughter. The Court acknowledged there was a strong public interest in making the judgments public in order to promote transparency over the court's decision-making process especially concerning its decision to put the couple's four other children up for adoption. Furthermore, given the partial picture previously available as a result of the criminal proceedings, the court emphasised the importance of a fully informed public debate with complete information regarding the case. As regards the local authority's request to redact the name of the authority and the social workers involved in the published judgments, the court found no credible risk of reprisals against and vilification of the social workers since they had limited contact with the parents due to the latter's lack of cooperation, however agreed to apply these redactions solely to protect the identities of the children and their Article 8 rights.

Ofcom's Protection of Children Codes come into effect

Ofcom’s Protection of Children Codes (the Codes) came into force on 25 July 2025 under the Online Safety Act (OSA) 2024. The Codes require all user-to-user and search services in scope to assess whether children are likely to access their platforms. Where the answer is yes, a comprehensive children’s risk assessment must be completed and recorded by 24 July 2025. For larger platforms (Category 1 and 2A), there is a further obligation to disclose these assessments to Ofcom by 7 August 2025. Risk assessments must be reviewed annually, or whenever there is a significant change to the service or its user base. The Codes also introduce over 40 safety measures, tailored to the size, risk profile, and features of each service. Some of these include ensuring the provider has robust age assurance, safer algorithms and moderation systems, accessible reporting, support materials for children and their carers, and sufficient accountability within the service provider for children's safety. Failure to comply with the Codes may result in investigations, and fines of up to 10% of global turnover or £18 million, whichever is greater. Following the implementation of the Codes, a petition to repeal the OSA has been launched due to concerns around free speech. Many others have questioned the utility of the stricter age assurance and content controls due to the ease of access to VPNs (Virtual Private Networks) to bypass any restrictions. The Government has responded to say it is working with Ofcom to ensure that online in-scope services are subject to robust but proportionate regulation through the effective implementation of the OSA. 

CPR update: Courts required to notify journalists of reporting restrictions in criminal proceedings from October 2025

As of 6 October 2025, the Criminal Procedure Rules explicitly require the courts to notify journalists in advance when discretionary reporting restrictions are being considered or applied. This reform, championed by HMCTS Media Working Group, the CPR Committee, court officials and press freedom advocates, will provide journalists with more clarity around, and timely notice of, reporting restrictions allowing them to challenge restrictions where appropriate and report meaningfully on cases as they break, bolstering open justice and transparency in the courts. 

Rumoured former IRA agent Stakeknife's will to be kept under wraps

Following a High Court hearing on 21 July 2025, Sir Julian Flaux has ruled that the will of the man believed to be top IRA agent codenamed "Stakeknife", whose identity is widely believed to be Freddie Scappaticci, must remain sealed for 70 years. Excepting members of the royal family, this is the first time a court has directed a will should not be made public. The court concluded that publishing the will would present a significant risk of harm or even death to individuals named in the will who might be considered "guilty by association" with Mr Scappaticci. Furthermore, no sufficient countervailing public interest was found to justify disclosure under the circumstances. The decision is a novel example of a court having to balance the need for transparency with regards to probate matters with a competing need to safeguard privacy, security, and public safety. 

Chaudhry & Anor v Qureshi [2025] EWHC 1912 (KB)

Mohammed Yasin Chaudhry, Regional President of the Pakistan People's Party (PPP) in Azad Jammu and Kashmir (AJK) and member of the AJK Legislative Assembly (the First Claimant) and his son Amar Yasin, a fellow member of the AJK Legislative Assembly (the Second Claimant), have been successful in their defamation claim against UK-based journalist, Abrar Quresh. The Claimants' claim arose from an interview conducted by the Defendant with Chaudhry Muhammed Sabeel, a former employee of the First Claimant, in which Mr Sabeel made allegations of serious criminal conduct including blackmail, sexual assault and theft of public monies. Mrs Justice Heather Williams found that the words complained of were defamatory statements of fact [99]. The Defendant's section 4 public interest defence failed as he had not demonstrated that a reasonable belief that publication of the words complained of was in the public interest. Key issues included the fact that the Defendant had failed to properly investigate the allegations and had failed to approach the Claimants for comment [131-132]. Heather Williams J recognised that whilst failing to verify the statement complained of and/or failing to go for comment was not always fatal to a section 4 public interest defence, here it was "very relevant" given the "very serious allegations of criminal conduct by prominent public figures that is likely to attract considerable interest".  The Claimants were each awarded £130,000 by way of compensatory damages (including aggravated damages) and an injunction was granted to prevent further publication of the words complained of. Despite accepting that the First Claimant was a more prominent politician and thus appeared to have "more to lose", Heather Williams J recognised that as an "upcoming politician" with his career ahead of him, the Second Claimant may equally be seen in this light [141]. This reasoning resulted in the Claimants being awarded the same amount in damages. The aggravating factors (beyond those mentioned above) included an absence of any apology or retraction; the Defendant's failure to respond to letters before claim; and the "suggestion" he would rely on truth and honest opinion defences which he abandoned at the beginning of trial [145].

Ness v Miller [2025] EWHC 1784 (KB)

Christopher Ness, a British Masters athlete with coaching qualifications awarded by England Athletics and author of a personal online blog "Chris's Substack", brought claims for libel, false imprisonment and breach of the UK GDPR/Data Protection Act 2018 against Jennifer Miller, a YouTube content creator and co-operator of the "Truth Finders" YouTube account. The High Court dismissed the [132]. No decision was made regarding the false imprisonment claim for which there is an outstanding strike out application. The libel claim related to a livestream video co-presented by the Defendant and published to the "Truth Finders" Youtube page and separately five emails sent to England Athletics. The words complained of in the video and emails alleged intimidation, harassment, filming on private property and threatening online conduct by Ness as part of his investigations into the disappearance of Nicola Bulley in St Michael's on Wyre in 2023. The libel claim failed on reference. The Claimant, who acted mainly as a litigant in person, submitted that viewers would have understood the words complained of to refer to him because of an identifying comment that appeared in the live chat next to the video at a similar time [67]. However the live chat comment had not been referred to in the Claimant's Particulars of Claim, (which had been professionally drafted), but only in a separate informal document ("Claimant's case for Trial of Preliminary Issues") in which Ness advanced further arguments [83-84]. Mrs Justice Heather Williams held that as neither the live chat comment, nor the Claimant's expanded case on reference as set out in this later document, was included in the Claimant's Particulars of Claim his case on reference could not get off the ground. Heather Williams J did not allow the Claimant to rely on reference innuendo as this would allow him to seek "a new claim altogether" in circumstances where he hadn't set out the specific facts known by the reasonable viewer and the extent to which these were disputed was not clear [87-89].

Whyte v BMA [2025] EWHC 1782 (KB)

Dr Martin Whyte, a junior doctor and BMA committee member, issued a libel claim after the BMA circulated an email to over 60,000 junior doctors, stating that he had made anti-Semitic comments online based on three tweets posted by Dr Whyte. Dr Whyte argued that his tweets were satirical or critical of hypocrisy, not antisemitic when read in context [21-23]. The BMA sought summary judgment, relying on a section 3 honest opinion defence. The central issue was whether, under section 3(4), an honest person could have held the opinion expressed in the BMA’s email, based on the facts proved [24-27]. Mr Justice Johnson emphasised that the honest opinion defence is “wide” and “far less exacting than the defence of truth” [27]. After reviewing the tweets and the context, the judge found that the context of the tweets did not prevent an honest person forming the opinion that the tweets were antisemitic and deeply troubling [40-43]. He held that whilst the question of whether an honest person could hold the expressed opinion was an objective issue that required an evaluative assessment, since neither party had identified any further evidence which would impact on the issue the question was capable of resolution at summary judgment. Summary judgment was granted in favour of the BMA [45-47]. This decision can be distinguished from Bridgen v Hancock [2025] EWHC 926 (KB) (another case involving an antisemitism allegation), in which the court recently refused summary judgment on the section 3(4) issue, holding that whether an honest person could hold the opinion expressed in that case was “highly evaluative” and required a full trial [64-89]. The Court of Appeal yesterday granted Mr Hancock permission to appeal that decision.  RPC act for Matt Hancock.

Quote of the fortnight

“A clear and unequivocal requirement for parties to notify the media of reporting restriction applications will result in much greater clarity for both media and the courts, strengthening open justice.” 

Sayra Tekin from the News Media Association on the amendment to the Criminal Procedure Rules taking effect on 6 October 2025. Source here.