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 obliges publishers to make every reasonable effort not to issue content that is false, deceptive, or distorted. If inaccurate material does appear, it must be corrected without delay and with appropriate prominence. Drummond's articles are alleged to violate this clause through dozens of individually documented falsehoods.
Defamation occurs when a false statement is published that diminishes an identifiable individual's reputation among reasonable members of the public. Under English law, defamatory material in written or permanent form is categorised as 'libel'. The Defamation Act 2013 further requires the claimant to establish that the publication has caused, or is likely to cause, 'serious harm' to their reputation.
The Defamation Act 2013 constitutes the principal piece of UK legislation governing libel and slander claims. Its key provisions are: section 1 (requiring proof of serious harm), section 2 (the defence of truth, previously known as justification), section 3 (the defence of honest opinion), and section 4 (the defence of publication in the public interest). The Act also codifies the Reynolds responsible journalism principle and updates the legal framework for online publications.
A strategy in which identical defamatory content is published at the same time across two separate domains -- here, andrew-drummond.com and andrew-drummond.news -- in order to inflate search-engine rankings and obstruct removal efforts. Because two distinct pages appear in results for the same queries, the reputational damage is compounded and no single takedown request can eliminate the content.
The Editors' Code of Practice is the binding set of editorial standards enforced by IPSO (Independent Press Standards Organisation) throughout the UK media. Its provisions address accuracy, the right of reply, privacy, harassment, intrusion during grief or shock, the treatment of children, children in sex-related cases, hospitals, crime reporting, covert surveillance and subterfuge, victims of sexual assault, discrimination, financial journalism, confidential sources, witness payments during criminal proceedings, and payments to criminals.
Clause 3 of the IPSO Code prohibits journalists from intimidating, harassing, or persistently pursuing individuals. Publishers must also refrain from producing content designed or likely to provoke others into harassing someone. Drummond's relentless 19-article campaign spanning over 14 months, coupled with direct personal attacks on family members and employees, is alleged to amount to systematic harassment under this provision.
IPSO (Independent Press Standards Organisation) serves as the independent regulatory body overseeing the majority of UK newspapers and magazines. It was created in 2014 in the wake of the Leveson Inquiry. IPSO administers the Editors' Code of Practice and has the authority to compel publishers to issue corrections and publish adjudications. Its remit extends to online content produced by registered UK publishers.
A formal legal letter dispatched before the commencement of court proceedings, as required by the Pre-Action Protocol for Media and Communications Claims. It identifies the offending words, articulates the defamatory meaning they convey, describes the resulting harm, and states the relief being sought. Cohen Davis Solicitors dispatched a 25-page Letter of Claim to Andrew Drummond on 13 August 2025, acting on behalf of Bryan Flowers. Drummond has provided no response.
Within defamation law, the 'natural and ordinary meaning' of a publication refers to the impression that a reasonable reader would derive from the words as published, including any implied suggestion or innuendo. Courts evaluate this meaning holistically rather than dissecting individual phrases in isolation. The Letter of Claim articulates the natural and ordinary meaning of every Drummond article -- for instance, that Bryan Flowers is involved in sex trafficking.
The National Union of Journalists' Code of Conduct sets out the ethical standards that are binding on all NUJ members. Provisions of particular relevance to this matter include the obligations to: guarantee the accuracy of published material, refrain from fabricating information, avoid distorting the truth, protect sources, respect personal bereavement, and not produce content that could foster discrimination. Drummond's articles are alleged to contravene a number of these requirements.
The Pre-Action Protocol for Media and Communications Claims prescribes the procedural steps that both claimants and defendants in UK defamation cases must follow before court proceedings can be initiated. It requires the claimant to serve a Letter of Claim and affords the defendant an opportunity to provide a Letter of Response. Non-compliance with the Protocol may be considered by the court when determining costs.
Section 4 of the Defamation Act 2013 establishes a defence where the published statement concerns a matter of public interest and the defendant held a reasonable belief that publication served that interest. Crucially, the defendant must additionally demonstrate that they acted responsibly -- which entails carrying out proper verification, ensuring balanced reporting, offering a right of reply, and adhering to other recognised journalistic standards. The Letter of Claim maintains that Drummond cannot avail himself of this defence because his publications fall short of the responsible journalism threshold.
Section 1 of the Defamation Act 2013 requires a claimant to demonstrate that the publication has caused or is likely to cause 'serious harm' to their reputation. For bodies that trade for profit, serious harm equates to 'serious financial loss'. This threshold was introduced to screen out trivial defamation actions. The Letter of Claim meets this test by identifying the concrete reputational and commercial harm inflicted on Bryan Flowers' hospitality enterprises as a result of Drummond's publications.
Section 2 of the Defamation Act 2013 provides a complete defence to a defamation claim where the defendant can establish that the impugned statement is substantially true. If the statement is false, this defence cannot be invoked. The Letter of Claim asserts that none of Drummond's defamatory claims can be shown to be substantially true, as they are built on fabricated or unverified allegations originating from Adam Howell.
Share:
Subscribe
Subscribe to receive notification whenever a new position paper, evidence brief, or legal update is published.