(1) David Kneafsey (2) Scott Reddy (3) Leo O'Neil (4) Terry Robinson (5) Martina Byrne (6) Christopher Price v (1) Independent Television News Ltd (2) Channel Four Television Corporation (3) Simon Israel
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | The Honourable Mr Justice Tugendhat,Mr Justice Tugendhat |
| Judgment Date | 19 December 2013 |
| Neutral Citation | [2013] EWHC 4046 (QB) |
| Docket Number | Case No: HQ12D04573 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division |
| Date | 19 December 2013 |
[2013] EWHC 4046 (QB)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
The Honourable Mr Justice Tugendhat
Case No: HQ12D04573
Mr William Bennett (instructed by Slater & Gordon) for the Claimants
Mr Gavin Millar QC (instructed by Charles Russell) for the Defendants
Hearing dates: 11th December 2013
Approved Judgment
I direct that pursuant to CPR PD 39A para 6.1 no official shorthand note shall be taken of this Judgment and that copies of this version as handed down may be treated as authentic.
The Honourable Mr Justice Tugendhat Mr Justice Tugendhat The Claimants are police constables serving in the Metropolitan Police Service ("MPS"). At the material time they had been serving the Enfield Crime Squad ("ECS"). The Third Defendant ("Mr Israel") is a journalist employed by Channel 4 News.
On 2 November 2011 the Defendants published, or caused to be published, a news item. It has remained available for viewing on the Channel 4 website since that date.
Following correspondence, on 1 November 2012, one day before the expiry of the one year period of limitation which applied to the first day on which the Broadcast was published, the Claimants issued a claim form claiming damages for libel, and an injunction. The Particulars of Claim are dated 29 August 2013. In them the Claimants state that they do not complain of any part of the Broadcast other than the words underlined below.
On 1 November 2013 the Defendants gave notice that they were seeking orders that the claim be struck out as an abuse of process (CPR r.3.4(2)), alternatively summary judgment in their favour (CPR r24), alternatively a ruling that the words complained of are not capable of bearing the meaning attributed to them in the Particulars of Claim. There is a further application for inspection of documents mentioned in the Particulars of Claim. No defence has been served.
THE CLAIM
The claim is in respect of the audiovisual image ("the Broadcast"). But for the purposes of this judgment I shall set out the words complained of as they have been transcribed. I have, of course, watched the Broadcast, and made my decision on the basis of that, and not on the basis of the transcript.
The transcript reads as follows (the words complained of are underlined):
"C4 news Presenter: Now, six police officers who smashed up a car with baseball bats while arresting a suspect have kept their jobs even though they've been found guilty of disreputable conduct. A disciplinary hearing was played footage of the incident involving officers from the Enfield Crime Squad in north London. The unit has now been disbanded and is at the centre of a wide–ranging corruption Inquiry as our Home Affairs correspondent, Simon Israel ("Simon Israel"), now reports.
[Film footage is shown]
"Attack, attack! Come on, out, out! Police, police."
Simon Israel: This was Enfield Crime Squad in action one evening in June 2008. In the car was Jonathan Billinghurst ("JB"), aged 18. He was still in uniform, having just left work in Ikea in Edmonton, north London.
"Get him on the floor."
JB: I hear a loud bang and the window to my left gets caved in and glass is just flying in my face. And then as I looked up, all I can see was just lots of baseball bats hitting and smashing my window, so I thought I was gonna be the victim of a car robbery. I thought I was gonna get dragged out and they just wanted to take the car.
Simon Israel: But Mr Billinghurst was wrong. They weren't robbers, they were police officers after him, not the vehicle. Mr Billinghurst was driving without a full license in a car which had been stolen. He was later convicted of handling stolen goods. But a lengthy disciplinary investigation has found he was the victim of excessive force by officers using unauthorised methods. Several brandished baseball bats neither issued nor sanctioned by the Metropolitan Police. Then there was the pickaxe handle. And then the clothing, a jacket, non-regulation uniform, with Crime Squad printed on the back. Five police constables have been reprimanded, and the detective sergeant, who ran the squad has been demoted, but none have been dismissed.
JB: I was practically beaten and dragged out of the vehicle, I could have had my sight… I could have been blinded with the glass flying everywhere, and all that's happened is they've just stepped down a position, but they're still police officers. They still have more powers than a normal citizen, so I feel hard done by.
Simon Israel: What would you have liked to have happened to these officers?
JB: Um, well, I would have liked the officers to have been completely removed from the police force.
Simon Israel: Channel 4 understands that the officers justified the violent arrest on this road because intelligence suggested Mr Billinghurst carried weapons and had threatened the police before. But the inquiry found no evidence that such intelligence even existed and that the victim had no history of violence.
Simon Israel: Can you think of any possible reason as to why they staged such a dramatic way of making an arrest on you?
JB: I personally believe that they may have thought that I have… I may have links or connections. It could have been — not pulling the racial card or anything — but it could have been that because I'm a male, I'm a black male, they could have thought that I…or I must know somebody in a gang, or I must know who stole the vehicle or where it came from, but they were mistaken.
Simon Israel: The Independent Police Complaints Commission which supervised the investigation said: "Officers acting in this way bring the police service into disrepute. You do not expect to see police officers smashing a car with a baseball bat. Whatever the threat they claimed to experience, their actions should be proportionate and reasonable — which in this case they plainly weren't." What happened on this road 3 years ago, is only one of 43 specific incidents under investigation surrounding the general behaviour of the Enfield Crime Squad which was run out of this police station in north London. 16 Officers and a member of police staff have been questioned following a 10 month covert operation by the Yard's Anti-Corruption Command. There've been no criminal charges, but further disciplinary proceedings are planned."
The Claimants set out in para 11 of the Particulars of Claim the natural and ordinary meaning which they attribute to the words complained of, as follows:
"The words complained of bore the natural and ordinary meaning that each Claimant dishonestly conspired with the other Claimants in order to mislead the police disciplinary tribunal. Each Claimant did so by cynically giving false evidence to the tribunal, dishonestly and in breach of his or her duties as a police officer, that prior to the arrest of Mr Billinghurst each Claimant had reason to believe that he carried weapons and had threatened the police before."
The Claimants are not named or identified in the Broadcast. So the Claimants had to set out their case as to why any, and is so what, viewers would understand the Broadcast to refer to them. They did this in paras 12 to 14, as follows:
"12. A significant but unquantifiable number of people who watched the report either live on 2 November 2011 or on any subsequent date via the Channel 4 News web site would have understood the defamatory allegations complained of to have referred to the Claimants.
13. Publishees who knew that the Claimants were subject to disciplinary proceedings in regard to the arrest of Mr Billinghurst would have concluded that the defamatory allegation complained of was made against the Claimants. Such publishees included
13.1 the Claimants' superior officers;
13.2 their colleagues within the Metropolitan Police; and
13.2 members of their immediate families.
14. Publishees who recognised the Claimants from that part of the report which included a film of the arrest would have concluded that the defamatory allegation complained of was made against the Claimants. All of the Claimants, apart from the Fourth, were visually identifiable from that part of the report which included a film of the arrest of Mr Billinghurst."
There is a claim for aggravated damages. This is on two bases. The first basis is pleaded in paras 16.2 and 3 to 8 of the Particulars of Claim. These read as follows:
"16.2 On 22 November 2011 a letter of claim was sent to the Editor of Channel 4 News.
a. The letter quoted that part of the Presiding Officer's Account which made it clear that the words complained of were palpably false. The finding reported in the words complained of had not been made and, in fact, there had been a finding that the Claimants had grounds to believe ("intelligence") that Mr Billinghurst might be violent and/or carry a weapon (the information set our in paragraph 8 above was quoted in the letter of claim [the letter of 22 November 2011]).
b. Despite receiving this information, the Defendants refused to retract the allegation complained of and, despite having hard evidence which contradicted the words complained of, refused even to withdraw (temporarily or otherwise) the allegation complained of from the Channel 4 News website, where it continues to be published….
3. On 3 June 2008 the Claimants arrested a Jonathan Billinghurst. The arrest had been planned in advance. It was believed that Mr Billinghurst was in possession of a stolen car. The plan was to arrest him whilst he was driving the car. The decision about how to effect the arrest was informed by intelligence received by the Claimants which indicated that there...
To continue reading
Request your trial