Cristiano Ronaldo v The Daily Telegraph

The Daily Telegraph has been forced to pay “substantial damages” after defaming Cristiano Ronaldo.

The article in question alleged that the footballing superstar had been out partying and drinking alcohol when he should have been resting whilst recovering from an injury. The Daily Telegraph had reported that Ronaldo put down his crutches to party with a group of models, in fact he had stuck to a quiet corner drinking only non-alcoholic energy drinks.

The Daily Telegraph also suggested that his manager at the time, Sir Alex Ferguson, had been dismayed by Ronaldo's behaviour. However, according to the BBC, Sir Alex had actually offered to stand as a witness for Ronaldo.

Without having access to the judgement, I think we can assume that the judge would have said that the report “tended to” disparage Ronaldo in his business or trade, by suggesting that he was not acting in a way a professional sportsman should. The “reasonable person” test is also satisfied here.

The other aspects of the test to prove defamation are also easily proven.

Identification: The article obviously refers to Cristiano Ronaldo as it names him. A picture was also printed next to the article.

Third Party Publication: The article was published in the Daily Telegraph, a newspaper with a large readership.

None of the defences to libel are available in this case. Justification could be used if there were any proof that backed up the claims. However, there appears to be none. There is no defence of fair comment as the article represented facts, not opinion. The defence of privilege is irrelevant.

The Daily Telegraph could have argued that the information was in the public interest and that their story had been a product of responsible journalism. However, it appears that the story was not considered important enough to be in the public interest, or that all of the strict criteria that were laid out in the Reynolds case were not satisfied.

This case shows there can be a fine line between a defamatory story and a non-defamatory story. If the Daily Telegraph had merely reported that he had gone to the club it would have been fine, but to suggest he had danced without crutches whilst intoxicated made the story defamatory.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11709871