56. (1) The statement must be recognisable as comment, as distinct from an imputation of fact (see Gatley on Libel and Slander, 12th edition, para 12.7). (2) Comment is “something which is or can reasonably be inferred to be a deduction, inference, conclusion, criticism, remark, observation, etc.” (Branson v. Bower [2001] EMLR 15 [26]) (3) The ultimate determinant is how the words would strike the ordinary reasonable reader (Grech v. Odhams Press [1958] 2 QB 275, 313). The subject-matter and context of the words may be an important indicator of whether they are fact or comment (British Chiropractic Association v. Singh [2011] 1 WLR 133 [26], [31]). (4) Some statements which are by their nature and appearance comment are nevertheless treated as statements of fact where, for instance, a comment implies that a claimant has done something (i.e. engaged in dishonourable conduct ) but does not indicate what that something is (Myerson v. Smith’s Weekly Publishing Co. Ltd (1923) 24 SR (NSW) 20, 26 per Ferguson J). The common law has always been fiercely protective of comment and opinion. Strasbourg jurisprudence has reinforced the importance of freedom of political debate in a democratic society. Statements about the motives and intentions of a third party are to be categorised as value judgements rather than factual assertions lending themselves to proof (Axel Springer AG v. Germany (No.2) (Application No.48311/10) (unreported) given 10 July 2014, at para. 63) reminded us forcefully. The Court in Yeo stated the general approach as follows (at [97]): “...[T]he court should take as its starting point the general features of the article and the impact these are likely to have on how the words used strike the mind of the ordinary reader. It should bear in mind [1] the positioning within the paper of the article under examination (for instance whether it is in the news section or in an “op ed” piece or magazine); [2] the general nature of the subject matter dealt with in that article (news, political, social, financial or other); [3] who has written the material, if this is apparent (is it for example the paper’s political correspondent or an established commentator?); and [4] the form of expression the reader would be likely to expect from an article on this subject matter, positioned as it is, and by this or these author(s). It is against that background that the court should consider the particular statements in the article and assess, as far as possible at the same time, what if any defamatory meaning it conveys and the extent to which this is factual or comment. In performing this last task the court should be alert to the importance of giving free rein to comment and wary of interpreting a statement as factual in nature, especially where here it is made in the context of political issues. In drawing the distinction the court should consider what the words in their context indicate to the reader about the kind of statement the author intends to make.” Chase Levels 14