Cassidy v Daily Mirror Newspapers Ltd [1929] 2 KB 331

Facts

• Mr. Cassidy, who was married, brought a defamation claim against the Daily Mirror newspaper.
• The Daily Mirror published a photograph of Mr. Cassidy with a woman, Miss X, captioned to state they were engaged.
• To the general public, the statement appeared harmless.
• For individuals who knew Mr. Cassidy was married, the publication implied he was engaging in an extramarital affair.
• The defamatory meaning did not arise from the statement itself but from the extrinsic fact of Cassidy’s marital status known to certain readers.
• The claim focused on whether the newspaper could be liable for defamation where the alleged defamatory meaning arose from external facts not stated in the publication.

Issues

1. Whether a publisher can be held liable for defamation when the defamatory meaning derives from extrinsic facts known only to some readers (true innuendo).
2. Whether the harm to reputation in such cases can be considered reasonably foreseeable by the defendant.
3. Whether the test for defamation should be based solely on the literal meaning of the publication or also account for context and audience knowledge.

Decision

• The court found that the newspaper’s publication was defamatory due to its implication, when combined with the extrinsic fact of Mr. Cassidy’s marriage.
• It held that a publisher is liable for defamation if a statement, together with external knowledge, reasonably leads some readers to believe the plaintiff’s reputation is harmed.
• The court determined that the test for defamation includes consideration of how right-thinking members of society with relevant knowledge would interpret the publication.

Legal Principles

• True innuendo arises where a statement, though not defamatory on its face, acquires a defamatory meaning due to extrinsic facts known to a specific audience.
• The objective test for defamation considers whether the statement, in its full context, would lower the plaintiff’s reputation in the eyes of reasonable people.
• Publishers are liable for the foreseeable consequences of statements, including implications created by facts known to a portion of the audience.
• The distinction is drawn between true innuendo (requiring extrinsic facts) and false innuendo (defamatory meaning contained within the words alone).

Conclusion

Cassidy v Daily Mirror Newspapers Ltd confirmed that liability for defamation extends to statements which become defamatory through external facts known to some readers, establishing true innuendo as a doctrinal basis for publisher responsibility in English defamation law.