Dale Vince, a green energy entrepreneur and Labour donor, is set to receive damages from the publisher of the Daily Mail after the court of appeal overturned a high court decision regarding a misleading article. The article, published in June 2023, was headlined “Labour repays £100,000 to sex pest donor” and featured Vince’s picture, despite the donor referred to in the headline being someone else.
Vince took legal action against Associated Newspapers Limited over the article, claiming it used his picture to mislead millions of readers. The pictures of Vince were published in print and on the Mail+ app, and were changed online to photographs depicting the actual donor, Davide Serra, 47 minutes after the story’s publication.
The article actually referred to the fact that Labour was repaying money to Serra, who had been found to have made sexist comments to a female colleague in 2002. Vince argued that the article unfairly used his personal data and that the photos would lead many readers to believe that he had been accused of sexual harassment.
Associated Newspapers Limited’s lawyers argued that the full context of the article and pictures was clear to anyone who read the whole headline and story. However, the court of appeal has now ruled in Vince’s favor, with Sir Geoffrey Vos stating that they had “failed to take care not to publish misleading information and images in the articles”.
Vince has claimed that the ruling will have far-reaching implications for media coverage, highlighting the need for libel law to be updated for the modern era. He argued that the assumption that people read both headlines and articles in full is no longer valid, and that the internet and social media have changed the way people consume news, particularly in cases involving free speech.
Related: Hostels shut due to staff shortages
In a 20-page ruling, the court of appeal judges found that Vince was trying to seek redress for “an obvious injustice perpetrated by a wrongdoer who was taking every possible legal point against him”. The judges also stated that they had “no real prospect” of defending Vince’s damages claim.
Vince’s comments on the ruling suggest that he believes it will have significant implications for the way media outlets approach libel cases.
For those affected by similar cases, the ruling may provide a sense of hope that they can seek redress for injustices perpetrated by media outlets.
The court of appeal’s decision is a reminder that media outlets have a responsibility to ensure the accuracy and transparency of their reporting, particularly when it comes to individuals’ personal data.
It will be interesting to see how this case impacts the media.
Leave a Reply