Legal Case Summary
Donovan v The Face [1992] (Unreported)
Libel; newspaper
Facts
The claimant, Jason Donovan, was a successful singer. In the early 1990s, the magazine called The Face published an article alleging that Mr Donovan was homosexual.
Issues
Mr Donovan argued that, as he had always presented himself as straight, The Face magazine committed libel by alleging that he had deceived the public about his sexual orientation. In other words, the issue in this case was not whether calling someone gay was capable of being a defamatory statement – it is safe to say that no modern would find such a statement defamatory in itself. The issue was rather that the claimant was labelled a liar or a hypocrite by presenting himself as heterosexual when, in the magazine’s opinion, he was in fact gay.
Decision / Outcome
The Court found in favour of the claimant and accepted his argument that, by calling him gay, the defendant magazine caused him to be seen as a liar for posing as straight. The claimant was thus able to establish a case for libel.
Updated 19 March 2026
This case summary remains broadly accurate as a description of the 1992 proceedings. The central legal point — that the allegedly defamatory sting was not the imputation of homosexuality itself but rather the imputation of hypocrisy and dishonesty in having publicly presented as heterosexual — is correctly stated and reflects settled understanding of how courts approach the “right-thinking member of society” test in defamation.
Readers should note, however, that the legal and social landscape around this area has shifted considerably since 1992. The Defamation Act 2013 (applicable in England and Wales) materially reformed defamation law, introducing a serious harm threshold (s.1) requiring claimants to show that publication has caused or is likely to cause serious harm to reputation. Any comparable claim brought today would need to satisfy that threshold. The 2013 Act also introduced revised defences, including the defence of truth (replacing justification) under s.2 and the defence of honest opinion under s.3.
Additionally, the article’s observation that no court today would find an allegation of homosexuality defamatory in itself is consistent with the modern legal position, but this now has a firmer basis: courts have moved decisively away from treating membership of any sexual minority as capable of grounding a defamation claim. The residual argument — as in Donovan — that the sting lies in an imputation of dishonesty rather than sexual orientation, remains conceptually available under current law but would still need to meet the serious harm requirement under the 2013 Act.
As this case is unreported, independent verification of the precise findings is limited, and students should treat it as illustrative of principle rather than as a fully citeable authority.
