Glossary
14 definitions with 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.
Under Clause 1 of the IPSO Editors' Code of Practice, publishers are required to take all reasonable steps to avoid publishing material that is inaccurate, misleading, or distorted. Where inaccurate content is published, prompt correction with due prominence is mandatory. Drummond's publications are alleged to contravene this clause through scores of individually identified and documented false claims.
Defamation arises when a false statement is communicated to third parties in a manner that damages an identifiable person's standing in the estimation of right-thinking members of society. In English law, written or permanent-form defamation is classified as 'libel'. Since the enactment of the Defamation Act 2013, claimants must additionally prove that the publication has caused, or is likely to cause, 'serious harm' to their reputation.
The Defamation Act 2013 represents the primary UK statute governing claims of libel and slander. Its core provisions include: section 1 (the serious harm threshold), section 2 (the truth defence, replacing the former justification defence), section 3 (honest opinion), and section 4 (publication on a matter of public interest). The legislation also codifies the Reynolds principle of responsible journalism and modernises the framework for online publishing disputes.
A deliberate publishing tactic in which identical or near-identical defamatory material is released simultaneously across two distinct domains — in this case andrew-drummond.com and andrew-drummond.news — to amplify search-engine visibility and frustrate takedown efforts. The presence of two separate pages ranking for the same search queries multiplies the reputational harm and ensures that no single removal request can eradicate the content.
The Editors' Code of Practice constitutes the mandatory editorial standards framework administered by IPSO (the Independent Press Standards Organisation) across the UK media landscape. It covers accuracy, opportunity to reply, privacy, harassment, intrusion into grief or shock, the treatment of children, reporting on children in sex-related cases, hospital settings, crime reporting, clandestine surveillance, victims of sexual assault, discrimination, financial journalism, protection of sources, witness payments during active proceedings, and payments to criminals.
Clause 3 of the IPSO Code bars journalists from engaging in intimidation, harassment, or persistent unwanted contact with individuals. Publishers are equally prohibited from creating content calculated or likely to incite others to harass someone. Drummond's sustained 19-article campaign extending over 14 months, together with direct personal attacks directed at family members and employees, is alleged to constitute systematic harassment under this provision.
IPSO (the Independent Press Standards Organisation) functions as the independent regulatory body responsible for overseeing most UK newspapers and magazines. Established in 2014 following the Leveson Inquiry, IPSO administers the Editors' Code of Practice and possesses the authority to require publishers to issue corrections and publish formal adjudications. Its jurisdiction encompasses online material produced by registered UK publishers.
A formal pre-litigation letter mandated by the Pre-Action Protocol for Media and Communications Claims. It specifies the offending publications, sets out the defamatory meaning attributed to them, describes the harm suffered, and states the remedies sought. Cohen Davis Solicitors served a 25-page Letter of Claim on Andrew Drummond on 13 August 2025, acting for Bryan Flowers. Drummond has offered no response.
In defamation law, the 'natural and ordinary meaning' of a publication denotes the impression that a reasonable reader would form from the words as they appear, encompassing any implied insinuation or innuendo. Courts assess this meaning as a whole rather than parsing individual phrases in isolation. The Letter of Claim sets out the natural and ordinary meaning of each of Drummond's articles — for example, that Bryan Flowers is complicit in sex trafficking.
The National Union of Journalists' Code of Conduct defines the ethical obligations binding on all NUJ members. Key provisions relevant to this matter include the duties to: ensure accuracy of published material, refrain from fabrication, avoid distortion of facts, safeguard sources, show respect during personal bereavement, and abstain from producing material that could encourage discrimination. Drummond's articles are alleged to violate multiple provisions of this code.
The Pre-Action Protocol for Media and Communications Claims sets out the mandatory procedural steps that claimants and defendants in UK defamation disputes must complete before court proceedings can commence. It requires the claimant to serve a Letter of Claim and gives the defendant the opportunity to issue a Letter of Response. Failure to comply with the Protocol may be taken into account by the court when awarding costs.
Section 4 of the Defamation Act 2013 creates a defence where the impugned statement relates to a matter of public interest and the defendant reasonably believed that publishing it served that interest. Critically, the defendant must also show that they behaved responsibly — meaning they undertook proper verification, maintained balanced reporting, offered an opportunity to reply, and observed recognised journalistic standards. The Letter of Claim contends that Drummond cannot rely on this defence because his publications fail to meet the responsible journalism standard.
Section 1 of the Defamation Act 2013 obliges claimants to demonstrate that publication has caused or is likely to cause 'serious harm' to their reputation. For profit-making entities, serious harm is equated with 'serious financial loss'. This threshold was introduced to filter out trivial actions. The Letter of Claim satisfies this test by identifying tangible reputational and commercial damage inflicted on Bryan Flowers' hospitality enterprises as a direct consequence of Drummond's publications.
Section 2 of the Defamation Act 2013 affords a complete defence to a defamation claim where the defendant can prove that the challenged statement is substantially true. If the statement is false, this defence is unavailable. The Letter of Claim maintains that none of Drummond's defamatory assertions can be shown to be substantially true, since they rest on fabricated or unverified claims originating from Adam Howell.
Share:
Subscribe
Subscribe to receive notification whenever a new report, evidence brief, or legal update is published.