## Facts

- Mr. Stern (claimant) brought a defamation claim against Mr. Piper (defendant) regarding allegations of fraudulent business practices.
- Mr. Piper published statements asserting that Mr. Stern had engaged in fraudulent activities, which Mr. Stern claimed were false and damaging to his reputation.
- Mr. Piper invoked the defense of justification, arguing that the statements about Mr. Stern were substantially true.
- At trial, some elements of the statements were found accurate, while others were not.

## Issues

1. Whether the defendant must prove that the defamatory statement was substantially true to succeed in the defense of justification.
2. Whether minor inaccuracies within a defamatory statement defeat the defense of justification if the core allegation is true.
3. Whether the central or "sting" of the defamatory allegation needs to be established as true, notwithstanding peripheral inaccuracies.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal held that the defense of justification requires the defendant to prove the substantial truth of the defamatory statement.
- The judgment clarified that minor inaccuracies do not defeat the defense so long as the central or "sting" of the allegation is true.
- The court considered peripheral inaccuracies irrelevant, provided the core of the statement was substantiated.
- The focus is to be on the essence of the defamatory allegation rather than literal or technical details.

## Legal Principles

- In defamation, the burden rests on the defendant to prove that the defamatory statement is substantially true for the defense of justification.
- The defense is not undermined by minor or incidental inaccuracies if the main substance of the allegation (the "sting") is accurate.
- The law balances protecting reputation with freedom of expression by requiring accuracy in the main allegations, not absolute literal precision.

## Conclusion

Stern v Piper [1996] 3 All ER 385 established that, in defamation claims, the defense of justification succeeds where the defendant proves the substantial truth of the core allegations, permitting minor inaccuracies that do not alter the thrust of the statement. This standard clarifies the evidential burden on defendants and guides the proper balance between free speech and reputation in English law.
