Honor Logan (University of Aberdeen), Katie O'Brien (University of Strathclyde) and Emma Naylor (University of Aberdeen) were law student scholars, participating in the WS Society Summer Scholarship programme during August 2025. The Summer Scholars presented their research on the Salt Path Scandal and potential legal repercussions for factual inaccuracies in memoirs to a group of lawyers. The Scholars highlighted that it was a complex case study of of privacy, defamation, fraud, advertising law, medical ethics, and freedom of expression.
An excerpt of their article which summarises their research and CPD presentation can be read below.
Introduction
The memoir, The Salt Path by Raynor Winn (real name Sally Walker) was published in 2018 to critical acclaim and commercial success. The story raised themes of homelessness, terminal illness, and resilience through a 630-mile trek along the South West Coast Path. The memoir was a huge success and sold more than two million copies, generating approximately £9.5 million in sales. The book was later adapted into a film starring Gillian Anderson, released in 2025.
However, following its cinematic adaptation, The Observer published an article which questioned the factual accuracy of several key claims in the memoir. The primary allegations include:
The Walkers’ homelessness stemmed from fraud rather than misfortune,
Tim Walker’s (“Moth”) medical diagnosis of corticobasal degeneration (CBD) was either inaccurate or misrepresented,
Identifiable individuals (such as a café owner in Mullion Cove) were portrayed in damaging and allegedly false terms.
Both Walker and Penguin Random House (PRH) deny these allegations. Nevertheless, the controversy has reignited legal debate over the honesty in memoirs, the responsibilities of publishers and filmmakers, and whether stronger safeguards should be imposed on media marketed as “true stories.” This article examines The Salt Path controversy through the lens of UK law, exploring key issues such as defamation, the misuse of private information, fraud and misrepresentation, medical ethics in publishing, advertising regulation, and publisher liability. It also considers whether industry reform is necessary.
Misuse of Private Information
One of the immediate legal risks connected to memoir writing is the misuse of private information. The modern tort of misuse of private information is derived from Campbell v MGN Ltd [2004] 2 AC 457.
The two-stage test subsequently developed asks:
Did the claimant have a reasonable expectation of privacy?
If so, is that expectation outweighed by the defendant’s Article 10 ECHR right to freedom of expression?
In order to ascertain whether a reasonable expectation of privacy exists, the court will consider many factors including; the claimant’s attributes, the nature of the activity, location, consent, the circumstances in which the information was obtained, and the impact of disclosure.
In memoirs, privacy disputes often arise when individuals are indirectly identifiable, despite disclaimers. McKennitt v Ash [2006] EWCA Civ 1714 confirmed that the truth in the information is irrelevant; what matters is whether the nature of the information is sufficiently private to engage Article 8 ECHR. In this case, private details of singer Loreena McKennitt’s life were prevented from publication by injunction, even though the defendant claimed she was telling “her own story.” If we apply this to The Salt Path, depictions of the café owner and other real individuals may constitute misuse of private information if they reveal damaging details about identifiable people. Even if the events occurred in public (e.g., a café), the nature of the information being allegations of bullying and harassment may engage Article 8 protections. Regardless, the decisive question remains whether a reasonable person of ordinary sensibility would find the disclosure offensive as per Campbell v MGN.
Lawyers advising authors and publishers should stress that disclaimers (“names have been changed”) are not sufficient protection if subjects remain identifiable. Additionally, sensitive material (medical details, finances, character allegations) must be carefully risk-assessed before publication.
Defamation
The Defamation Act 2013 provides that a statement is defamatory if it causes “serious harm” to one's reputation. For corporate claimants, harm must amount to “serious financial loss”.
Case law provides key principles:
Sim v Stretch [1936] 2 All ER 1237: Would the words lower the claimant in the eyes of right-thinking members of society,
E Hulton & Co v Jones [1920] AC 581: Liability arises even if characters were intended to be fictitious, provided that a reasonable person acquainted with the claimant would believe the character referred to them,
Monroe v Hopkins [2017] EWHC 433 (QB): Twitter comments demonstrated that “serious harm” is assessed in light of context and dissemination.
In Scotland, the Defamation and Malicious Publication (Scotland) Act 2021 codifies defamation law and, under s.8(1)(a), abolishes the defence of “innocent dissemination” tightening liability for publishers. Applied here, the Mullion Cove café owner (and others who recognise themselves) may argue that The Salt Path seriously harmed their reputation by portraying them as bullies. Even unintended identifications (Hulton v Jones) may suffice.
Authors should avoid negative depictions of identifiable third parties unless supported by robust factual evidence or strong public interest arguments.
