106. My function “is to try to relate the right range of compensation to the gravity of the particular libel and to any aggravating or mitigating features”, paragraph 33 of Cleese v Associated Newspapers [2003] EWHC 137 (QB). It might be noted that when assessing the gravity of the libel “the more closely it touches the Plaintiff’s personal integrity, professional reputation, honour, courage, loyalty and the core attributes of his personality, the more serious it is likely to be”. I also note that a reasoned judgment rejecting a truth defence is capable of providing some vindication of a Claimant’s reputation. The proper defence of an action is not to be taken into account in aggravation of damages in libel proceedings. Any award for aggravated damages should be proportionate. 107. A helpful summary of principles relevant to the assessment of damages is set out in paragraphs 79-90 of Barron v Vines [2016] EWHC 1226 (QB). At paragraph 87 there was specific reference to the proposition that politicians might be expected to tolerate more than would be expected of others. When considering what is a proportionate award, particular care must be taken to avoid the chilling effect of large awards. Damages and an injunction – paragraph 7(f) 108. I have set out the relevant evidence and principles above. I note that the online article continued to be published until 1 November 2017 and I have reflected the continued publication in the assessment of damages, rather than as a matter of aggravation of damages, to avoid any double counting. There has been no apology. Having regard to all of the relevant factors including the meaning, the publication to around 7,000 persons, and the need to ensure that damages are proportionate, in my judgment an award of damages of £30,000 is appropriate. 109. I will also grant an injunction to restrain further publication of the article. This is because there remains a risk of further publication if an injunction is not ordered. No malicious falsehood – paragraphs 8(a), (b) (c) and (d) 110. For the tort of malicious falsehood it is necessary to show the publication of words: (1) which were false; (2) which referred to the claimant; (3) which were published maliciously; and (4) which caused special damage, or were “calculated”, meaning more likely than not, to cause pecuniary damage to the claimant, see Gatley on Libel and Slander, Twelfth Edition at 21.1 and 21.14. 111. It is apparent that words have been published which were false for the reasons given above. It was common ground that the relevant words referred to Mr Burgon. 112. It was common ground that, so far as malice was concerned, it is necessary to show that there was a lack of honesty by Mr Newton Dunn. Mr Burgon’s case is that Mr Newton Dunn was not acting honestly in that: the Dream Troll image was “doctored” by removing the hashtag “Black Sabbath”, which would have shown what was intended by the use of the “S” letters; it was withheld from readers that the image was a take-off of the Black Sabbath album cover; readers were told that the “S’s” were the actual “SS” symbol when they were not; claims were made that the Gothic font used for the band’s name was German military font or Nazi imagery; it was claimed that Mr Burgon had joined the band when he had not done so; there was a statement that