Stephen Belafonte v News Group Newspapers: High Court defines defamatory meaning in harassment claims
Court determines newspaper article accused film producer of US harassment and created grounds to suspect UK harassment of ex-wife.
The High Court has ruled on the defamatory meaning of a Sun newspaper article concerning Stephen Belafonte and allegations of harassment against his former wife, singer Melanie Brown (Mel B). Mrs Justice Collins Rice handed down her judgement on 11 February 2026, determining what an ordinary reasonable reader would understand the article to convey about the film producer.
The article, published online and in print in June 2024, reported that North Yorkshire Police were investigating harassment claims made by Brown following Belafonte's visit to Britain. The piece referenced historical allegations of abuse during their marriage, an existing US restraining order, and recent incidents involving a drone allegedly flown over Brown's home and a process server delivering legal documents.
Belafonte contended the article portrayed him as guilty of harassment both in the United States and during his UK visit, arguing the newspaper had baldly repeated allegations without qualification or balance. News Group Newspapers maintained the article merely reported grounds for investigation or suspicion, pointing to references to Belafonte's £4 million defamation lawsuit against Brown as evidence of meaningful counterbalance.
Application of defamation principles
The court applied established principles for determining natural and ordinary meaning, considering how a hypothetical ordinary reasonable Sun reader would interpret the article. Such a reader, whilst not naïve, would not be "avid for scandal" and could engage in "a certain amount of loose thinking" when consuming brief celebrity gossip.
The repetition rule—which treats hearsay statements as equivalent to direct statements for libel purposes—featured prominently. However, the court emphasised that context matters: mere repetition of allegations does not automatically create the highest level of defamatory meaning unless the publication adopts or endorses those allegations.
Distinct meanings for US and UK conduct
Mrs Justice Collins Rice found the article conveyed two separate defamatory meanings at different levels of certainty under the Chase framework, which categorises allegations from outright guilt (level 1) to grounds for investigation (level 3).
Regarding the US restraining order, the court determined an ordinary reader would understand at Chase level 1 that Belafonte was guilty of harassing Brown in America. The judgement rejected overly technical distinctions about restraining order grounds, finding readers would interpret the order's existence—combined with references to Brown living "in fear"—as confirmation of previous persistent misconduct.
The UK allegations received different treatment. Whilst the drone incident and process server visit were reported without qualification, the court found the overall context more provisional. The article reflected uncertainty about police involvement and made no direct connection between Belafonte and the drone beyond Brown's generic fears. This led to a Chase level 2 finding: grounds to suspect Belafonte caused both incidents and was thereby harassing Brown in the UK.
The court rejected Belafonte's claim that the article implied "cynical exploitation" of his daughter's visit, characterising this as extrapolation beyond reasonable readership interpretation.
Significance for media publishers
The judgement demonstrates nuanced application of defamation law to articles mixing historical context with developing stories. Publishers cannot avoid liability through mere attribution to sources, yet careful presentation of allegations as provisional or under investigation may reduce the severity of imputed meanings. The distinction between the two Chase levels here turned substantially on how definitively the underlying facts were presented and whether the article adopted the allegations or simply reported them as claims requiring verification.
The case proceeds with meaning now established, allowing the parties to address substantive defences including truth and honest opinion.
Copyright & permissions