Stocker v Stocker [2019] UKSC 17

Mrs Stocker posted on Facebook that her ex-husband had 'tried to strangle' her. The Supreme Court held that the trial judge erred by using dictionary definitions to interpret the phrase, rather than considering how an ordinary Facebook reader would understand it. The defence of justification succeeded.

Facts

The appellant, Nicola Stocker, and the respondent, Ronald Stocker, were former spouses whose marriage ended acrimoniously in 2012. On 23 December 2012, Mrs Stocker made statements on Facebook to her ex-husband’s new partner, Deborah Bligh, stating that Mr Stocker had ‘tried to strangle’ her, had been arrested for ‘gun issues’, had made threats, and had breached a non-molestation order. Mr Stocker brought defamation proceedings against his former wife.

The Incident

At trial, Mitting J rejected Mr Stocker’s account that he had merely placed one hand over his wife’s mouth to silence her. The judge found that Mr Stocker had placed one hand on her mouth and another under her chin on her upper neck, leaving red marks visible to police officers two hours later. However, the judge did not accept that Mr Stocker had intended to kill his wife.

Issues

The principal issue was whether the trial judge had erred in determining the meaning of the words ‘tried to strangle me’. Mr Stocker contended the words meant he had tried to kill her. Mrs Stocker argued they meant he had violently gripped her neck, inhibiting breathing and causing fear, but not an intention to kill.

Judgment

The Supreme Court unanimously allowed the appeal. Lord Kerr delivered the judgment with which all other Justices agreed.

Error in Using Dictionary Definitions

The trial judge had referred to the Oxford English Dictionary, which provided two definitions of ‘strangle’: (a) to kill by external compression of the throat; and (b) to constrict the neck or throat painfully. The judge reasoned that since Mrs Stocker said her husband ‘tried to strangle’ her but was still alive, the only possible meaning was that he had attempted to kill her.

The Supreme Court held this approach was legally erroneous. Lord Kerr stated that dictionary definitions should not dictate the meaning of allegedly defamatory statements. The meaning must be determined according to how the ordinary reasonable reader would understand the words in context.

The Context of Social Media

Lord Kerr emphasised the importance of context, particularly that this was a Facebook post. The court drew upon guidance from previous cases regarding social media communications:

The most significant lessons to be drawn from the authorities as applied to a case of this kind seem to be the rather obvious ones, that this is a conversational medium; so it would be wrong to engage in elaborate analysis of a 140 character tweet; that an impressionistic approach is much more fitting and appropriate to the medium.

Lord Kerr observed:

People scroll through it quickly. They do not pause and reflect. They do not ponder on what meaning the statement might possibly bear. Their reaction to the post is impressionistic and fleeting.

The Correct Meaning

The Supreme Court determined that the ordinary reader of the Facebook post would understand ‘tried to strangle me’ to mean that Mr Stocker had grasped his wife by the throat and applied force to her neck, rather than that he had deliberately tried to kill her.

Justification

Given the correct meaning, section 5 of the Defamation Act 1952 applied. It was undisputed that Mr Stocker had grasped his wife’s throat leaving visible red marks, had breached a non-molestation order, and had uttered threats. The court held that even if not every allegation was proved to the letter, Mrs Stocker’s defence of justification should not fail where the substance of what was proved established the essential truth of the allegations.

Implications

This case provides important guidance on the interpretation of allegedly defamatory statements on social media. Courts must consider how an ordinary reasonable reader of Facebook or Twitter would understand a statement, taking an impressionistic rather than analytical approach. Dictionary definitions should not be used to confine possible meanings of words in defamation cases. The case also confirms that appellate courts should exercise disciplined restraint when reviewing findings on meaning, but must intervene where there has been an error of law.

Verdict: Appeal allowed. The Supreme Court held that the trial judge erred in law by using dictionary definitions to determine meaning. The correct meaning of 'tried to strangle me' was that Mr Stocker had grasped his wife by the throat, not that he had tried to kill her. Mrs Stocker's defence of justification succeeded under section 5 of the Defamation Act 1952. Costs awarded to the appellant.

Source: Stocker v Stocker [2019] UKSC 17