Raffaele Mincione vs Rizzoli Corriere della Sera Media Group SPA & Others

This case concerned a defamation claim brought by Raffaele Mincione against Rizzoli Corriere della Sera Media Group SPA and others, involving allegations of financial misconduct related to Vatican funds.

TLDR:

• Raffaele Mincione filed a defamation lawsuit against Rizzoli Corriere della Sera Media Group SPA and others.
• The case involved allegations of financial misconduct in connection with Vatican funds.
• The court examined the public interest defense and the relevance of Italian law and journalistic practices.
• The court granted limited permission for expert evidence on Italian law.

The claimant, Raffaele Mincione, a financier and founder of the WRM Group, brought a defamation claim against Rizzoli Corriere della Sera Media Group SPA and three journalists. The case was centered on two articles published by the defendants, which alleged financial misconduct involving Vatican funds.

The first article, published on 8 November 2019, suggested that Mincione was involved in a criminal conspiracy to corrupt and defraud in connection with the investment of Vatican funds in a luxury building in London. The second article, published on 23 June 2020, alleged that Mincione had acted in conflict of interest and embezzled funds.

The meanings of the words in the articles were agreed upon by the parties and were considered defamatory at common law. However, the defendants relied on the public interest defense under section 4 of the Defamation Act 2013, arguing that the statements were on matters of public interest and that they reasonably believed the publication was in the public interest.

The defendants sought permission to rely on expert evidence regarding Italian law and journalistic practices. They argued that the context of the articles, written by Italian journalists for an Italian audience, required consideration of Italian standards. The court, however, emphasized that the primary perspective for the public interest defense was English law.

The court granted limited permission for expert evidence on specific aspects of Italian law, such as the status of the investigation by the Rome Public Prosecutor's Office and the confidentiality of entries in the Registro delle notizie di reato. The court denied permission for evidence on the statutory right of reply, ADR processes, and common practices of Italian journalists, as these were either undisputed or irrelevant.

The court concluded that the defendants' journalism should be judged by English standards, given the jurisdiction of the publication. The case highlighted the complexities of defamation law, especially when involving foreign elements and public interest defenses.

Legal representatives: Miss Lorna Skinner QC and Ms Kirsten Sjövoll (Withers LLP) for the Claimant, Mr Adam Wolanski QC and Ms Victoria Jolliffe (Crowell & Moring) for the Defendants.

Judicial Panel: Master Davison

Case Citation Reference: [2022] EWHC 2128 (QB)