Comedian Paul Currie loses appeal over meaning of Soho Theatre press release

Comedian Paul Currie has lost an appeal related to his libel claim against the Soho Theatre.

He launched the legal action following publication of a press release from the central London theatre on 13 February 2024 that said Jewish audience members were abused during one of his shows a few nights earlier.

It read: “On Saturday evening, following the end of Paul Currie’s show Shtoom, Jewish members of the audience were subjected to verbal abuse and the performer aggressively demanding they leave the theatre.

“Such appalling actions are unacceptable and have no place on our stages, now or ever.

“We will not be inviting Paul Currie back to perform at our venue.”

It also said the theatre was continuing its own investigation and consulting with police.

After the show, the Campaign Against Antisemitism said Jewish audience members had been “hounded out” and that Mr Currie had demanded to know why one person had not stood up to applaud when he brought out Ukrainian and Palestinian flags.

The Belfast comedian had allegedly shouted “get out” and “free Palestine”.

He was subsequently banned from performing in the West End theatre.

At a preliminary hearing last year, Mr Justice Nicklin was asked to consider the “natural and ordinary meaning” of the press release.

He found that a typical reader would understand the press release to mean: “Following the end of the claimant’s show, the claimant had verbally abused Jewish members of the audience and aggressively demanded that they leave the theatre and there were grounds to investigate whether by so doing the claimant had committed a criminal offence.”

Mr Currie appealed against this definition and wanted to include the phrase “because they were Jewish” when referring to audience members being asked to leave.

But this was dismissed by Court of Appeal judges on Tuesday, who said Mr Justice Nicklin said the reference to antisemitism was an expression of opinion by the theatre, not a statement of fact.

Lord Justice Singh, sitting with Lord Justice Coulson, said: “In my judgment, the judge did not fall into error as a matter of law, and the meaning which he gave the press release was one that was reasonably open to him.”

He continued: “The crucial question is not whether it can be said that the press release had the meaning that the appellant had acted as he did because some members of the audience were Jewish, but rather whether that attribution of a state of mind to the appellant is to be regarded as a statement of fact or could be regarded as an expression of the respondent’s opinion.

“As I have said, I have reached the conclusion that the latter approach was reasonably open to the judge.”