Claudine Morgan writes for The Law Society Gazette on Trump V BBC – what a UK defamation fight would really look like…
US President Donald Trump stating he has ‘an obligation’ to sue the BBC and seeking $1bn in damages makes for dramatic headlines.
An allegation that the BBC ‘defrauded the public’ after it 'butchered' his January 6 speech in a documentary that led to the exit of the corporation’s two top executives has attracted significant interest in the media sphere. The controversy centres around allegations that the BBC had edited parts of Trump’s speech together, so he appeared to explicitly encourage the Capitol Hill riot of January 2021.
The drama gives way to a disciplined set of statutory tests and common law principles in the UK that would dictate whether such a claim ever got off the ground here —and whether the BBC could defend it. Strip away the political theatre and the law is clear: any claimant, even a US President, faces real hurdles under the Defamation Act 2013 and the modern, defendant-friendly architecture of English law.
In an article for The Law Society Gazette, Claudine Morgan, Partner in our Reputation Management team, addresses:
- The threshold question of serious harm
- Jurisdiction, forum and targeting
- Limitation and the single publication rule
- Remedies and strategy
- The BBC's editorial position
A threat to sue makes worldwide headlines but a viable libel claim must clear legal thresholds. In the UK, a claim by Trump against the BBC would face the serious harm test, the rigours of meaning determination and a trio of powerful defences, not least in relation to disputing the quantum of the damages sought.
Read the full piece in The Law Society Gazette here.
