The potential libel is the photograph.
Good one
A person with a conviction for an offence of dishonestly is going to sue someone for showing a presumably unaltered photograph of himself drinking from a bottle. Where were all you top lawyers when this offender was prosecuted for an offence of dishonesty and had his CoA cancelled?
Dow Jones v Gutnick has nothing to do with whether this particular photograph is libellous.
Isn't there a defence that the plaintiff is incapable of further defamation - perhaps someone seen in a photograph drinking from a bottle on a website listing their offence of dishonesty and the cancellation of their CoA would be seen in that light.
And the defence of fair comment on a matter of public interest?
A reasonable person could think he is drinking beer.
Isn't the test for this defence whether a reasonable person could think the 'libellous statement' to be true?
Let me know when this offender actually wins the defamation case and I'll happily admit being wrong, but for now, I'm pretty glad the website is there...