Glossary
14 definitions with Thai translations and links to the relevant position papers.
Note: This is not a legal dictionary. The definitions below are provided for general understanding only and do not constitute legal advice. For legal advice, please consult a qualified solicitor.
Clause 1 of the IPSO Editors' Code of Practice mandates that publishers exercise care to avoid publishing information that is inaccurate, misleading, or distorted. Should inaccurate material be published, a correction must follow without delay and with appropriate prominence. Drummond's articles are alleged to contravene this clause with respect to dozens of individually identified false statements.
Defamation involves publishing a false statement that diminishes the standing of an identifiable individual in the estimation of reasonable members of society. Under English law, defamation in written form is known as 'libel'. The Defamation Act 2013 further requires a claimant to demonstrate that the publication has caused, or is likely to cause, 'serious harm' to their reputation.
The Defamation Act 2013 constitutes the principal UK statute on defamation. Its key provisions encompass: section 1 (the serious harm threshold), section 2 (the truth defence โ previously known as justification), section 3 (the honest opinion defence), and section 4 (publication on a matter of public interest). The Act also codifies the Reynolds responsible journalism defence and updates the rules concerning online publication.
A strategy in which identical defamatory content is published concurrently across two separate domains โ in this instance andrew-drummond.com and andrew-drummond.news โ to amplify search engine visibility and complicate removal efforts. Two distinct pages rank for the same search query, compounding the reputational damage and making it more difficult for any single platform to suppress the material.
The Editors' Code of Practice comprises the standards enforced by IPSO (Independent Press Standards Organisation) across the UK. It addresses accuracy, opportunity to reply, privacy, harassment, intrusion into grief or shock, children, children in sex cases, hospitals, reporting of crime, clandestine devices and subterfuge, victims of sexual assault, discrimination, financial journalism, confidential sources, witness payments in criminal trials, and payments to criminals.
Clause 3 of the IPSO Code prohibits journalists from engaging in harassment, intimidation, or persistent pursuit of individuals. Publishers must refrain from producing material designed or likely to encourage harassment by others. Drummond's sustained 19-article campaign spanning more than 14 months, coupled with personal attacks targeting family members and staff, is alleged to amount to systematic harassment.
IPSO (Independent Press Standards Organisation) is the independent regulatory body for the majority of UK newspapers and magazines, created in 2014 in the wake of the Leveson Inquiry. It administers the Editors' Code of Practice and has the authority to compel publishers to print corrections and adjudications. Its remit extends to online content produced by registered UK publishers.
A formal legal letter dispatched prior to the commencement of court proceedings, as required by the Pre-Action Protocol for Media and Communications Claims. It specifies the words complained of, the meaning attributed to them, the harm sustained, and the remedy being sought. Cohen Davis Solicitors issued a 25-page Letter of Claim to Andrew Drummond on 13 August 2025 on behalf of Bryan Flowers. No response has been received from Drummond.
Within defamation law, the 'natural and ordinary meaning' of a publication refers to the interpretation a reasonable reader would draw from the words used, including any implicit innuendo. Courts evaluate this meaning holistically rather than examining isolated phrases. The Letter of Claim details the natural and ordinary meaning of each of Drummond's articles โ for instance, that Bryan Flowers is a sex trafficker.
The National Union of Journalists' Code of Conduct establishes the ethical principles governing NUJ members. Provisions of particular relevance to this case include the duties to: produce work that is accurate, refrain from fabricating facts, avoid distorting the truth, protect sources, respect private grief, and not produce material that could promote discrimination. Drummond's articles are alleged to contravene multiple provisions of this Code.
The Pre-Action Protocol for Media and Communications Claims prescribes the procedural steps that both claimants and defendants in UK defamation cases are obliged to follow before court proceedings are initiated. It requires the claimant to dispatch a Letter of Claim and provides the defendant with an opportunity to issue a Letter of Response. Non-compliance with the Protocol may be taken into consideration by a court when determining costs.
Section 4 of the Defamation Act 2013 offers a defence where the statement concerns a matter of public interest and the defendant held a reasonable belief that its publication served the public interest. Importantly, the defendant must additionally demonstrate that they acted responsibly โ which necessitates verification, balance, right of reply, and adherence to other journalistic standards. The Letter of Claim contends that this defence is not available to Drummond, as his publications do not satisfy the test of responsible journalism.
Under section 1 of the Defamation Act 2013, a claimant must establish that publication has caused or is likely to cause 'serious harm' to their reputation. In the case of companies, serious harm equates to 'serious financial loss'. This threshold was introduced to discourage trivial defamation claims. The Letter of Claim addresses this requirement by pinpointing the specific reputational and commercial harm inflicted on Bryan Flowers' hospitality operations by Drummond's publications.
Section 2 of the Defamation Act 2013 provides a complete defence to a defamation claim where the defendant can demonstrate that the impugned statement is substantially true. If the statement is false, this defence cannot be invoked. The Letter of Claim argues that none of the defamatory claims made by Drummond are capable of being proved substantially true, given that they rest upon fabricated or unverified assertions sourced from Adam Howell.
Share:
Subscribe
Subscribe to receive notification whenever a new position paper, evidence brief, or legal update is published.