High Court victory clarifies defamatory meaning in Mel B's former husband Stephen Belafonte v News Group Newspapers

The Sun loses key defamation hearing over Mel B article

Cohen Davis Solicitors acted for Stephen Belafonte, the former husband of Melanie Brown, better known as Mel B of the Spice Girls in a defamation claim against the Sun newspaper. The claim resulted in an important High Court ruling confirming that the article conveyed serious defamatory allegations against our client. 

The case of Stephen Belafonte v News Group Newspapers

When allegations about the private lives of celebrities appear in the national press, the damage to reputation can be swift and serious, particularly where a newspaper blurs the line between allegation and fact. Those risks were at the heart of Belafonte v News Group Newspapers, a High Court libel claim arising from an article published by The Sun during a period of intense public scrutiny.

Celebrity context and intense media scrutiny involving Mel B

Both individuals at the centre of the article were well known to the public. Mr Belafonte had long been involved in the entertainment industry, while his former wife, Melanie Brown (Mel B), is internationally famous as “Mel B” of the Spice Girls. Her global profile means that any reporting connected to her personal life attracts immediate attention, rapid online sharing, and widespread public commentary. Although Mel B was not a defendant in the libel proceedings, the article was centrally concerned with allegations she had made about Mr Belafonte. The court recognised that the piece was written and consumed as celebrity news, designed to provoke an emotional reaction. In defamation cases, this context matters, because celebrity reporting carries a heightened risk of reputational harm due to its reach and repetition.

Timing alongside parallel court proceedings

The Sun published the piece online on 27 June 2024, with a print version appearing the following day. This coincided with a period in which related family court proceedings involving Mr Belafonte and Mel B were unfolding in England. In those proceedings, Mel B had applied, without notice to Mr Belafonte, for a restraining order against him in the UK. Once Mr Belafonte was given the opportunity to respond, the court revoked the order immediately. Unusually, Mel B was also ordered to pay Mr Belafonte’s legal costs incurred in having to apply to set aside the unsubstantiated order. You can read more about this case here.

The article and the allegations complained of

The article suggested that Mr Belafonte had harassed and abused Mel B during their marriage in the United States and that he continued to harass her during a visit to the UK. It referred to police involvement, alleged intimidation, and historic abuse, all framed in emotive language and presented as part of an ongoing pattern of behaviour. While newspapers are entitled to report on legal disputes and the lives of public figures, defamation law draws a clear line where allegations of serious misconduct are presented as fact rather than allegation or suspicion. Mr Belafonte’s position was that this article crossed that line and caused serious harm to his reputation.

What is a meaning hearing in defamation cases

Defamation claims in England and Wales often begin with a preliminary issue known as a meaning hearing. At this stage, the court decides what the words complained of would mean to the ordinary reasonable reader, reading the article as a whole and in context. To help courts do this consistently, judges often refer to what are known as the Chase levels, which describe how strongly an allegation is being put. In simple terms, a Chase level 1 meaning is the most serious. It means the article is saying the allegation is true and that the person is guilty of the wrongdoing.

A Chase level 2 meaning is less definite. It suggests there are reasonable grounds to suspect the person may have committed the wrongdoing, but stops short of stating it as fact. A Chase level 3 meaning is the lowest level, where the article is saying only that there are grounds to investigate whether the wrongdoing occurred. This distinction is crucial in defamation cases in the UK. If the court finds that an article conveys a Chase level 1 meaning, the publisher faces a far more difficult task in defending the claim than if the article is merely reporting suspicion or investigation. In celebrity cases, where reputational damage can be global and long-lasting, securing a clear and accurate ruling on meaning is particularly important. You can read more about Chase Levels in defamation cases.

The High Court’s findings

In a detailed judgment, Mrs Justice Collins Rice held that the Sun’s article conveyed serious defamatory meanings about Mr Belafonte. The court found that an ordinary reader would understand the article to mean that Mr Belafonte was guilty of having harassed Mel B in the United States. This was a finding at the most serious level recognised in defamation law, known as a Chase level 1 meaning. In practical terms, this meant the court accepted that The Sun had presented those allegations as undisputed fact, rather than as claims, suspicion, or matters still open to question. The court also found that the article conveyed that there were grounds to suspect Mr Belafonte of continuing to harass Mel B during his visit to the UK, including by causing a drone to be flown over her home and by the service of legal papers. This fell within a Chase level 2 meaning, where the allegation is put as giving rise to suspicion rather than proven guilt. Although framed at a lower level of certainty than the US allegations, these imputations were still defamatory and damaging to Mr Belafonte’s reputation.

Repeating allegations does not reduce liability

A central issue in the case was the repetition rule. In simple terms, English defamation law does not allow publishers to avoid liability by claiming they were merely repeating allegations made by someone else. Repetition can be just as harmful as making the allegation directly. The court confirmed that attributing allegations to Mel B or unnamed sources did not dilute their defamatory impact. This principle is particularly important in celebrity journalism, where allegations are frequently recycled across multiple platforms.

Reputation protection in high-profile cases

For Mr Belafonte, the ruling was a crucial step in challenging a damaging public narrative that emerged during a period of intense scrutiny. When media reporting coincides with ongoing court proceedings, reputational harm can be amplified, particularly where readers assume that allegations have judicial backing. The outcome of this case shows that defamation does not have to be expressed in explicit or direct words. It can arise through implication, by the way an article is written, the tone it adopts, and the scene it sets in the reader’s mind. Newspapers often seek to create an overall impression without spelling out an allegation, in an attempt to avoid liability, and tabloid publications are particularly adept at this technique. In this case, however, that approach did not succeed. The court found that The Sun had orchestrated a perception of guilt where no such guilt had been established, and I am proud to have helped to hold them to account.

Lawyers’ thoughts on the case

This decision is a strong example of the courts recognising how celebrity journalism is actually read and understood. Headlines, imagery, tone, and timing all shape meaning, particularly when reporting on high-profile individuals during active legal disputes. By securing clear findings on defamatory meaning at an early stage, we were able to place our client in a strong position to protect his reputation. For individuals facing damaging media coverage, especially in the glare of celebrity reporting, this case underlines that English defamation law remains a robust and effective tool. Special thanks to Mr Gervase de Wilde & Ms Lily Walker-Par, both of 5RB and for the rest of the legal team.