Aiken and Others v Police Review Publishing Company Ltd
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE HIRST,LORD JUSTICE ALDOUS,THE MASTER OF THE ROLLS |
| Judgment Date | 12 April 1995 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1995] EWCA Civ J0412-2 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Docket Number | FC3/95/5645/E |
| Date | 12 April 1995 |
[1995] EWCA Civ J0412-2
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
(Sir Michael Davies)
Before: The Master of the Rolls (Sir Thomas Bingham) Lord Justice Hirst Lord Justice Aldous
FC3/95/5645/E
QBENI 94/0270/E
MR. P MILMO QC & MRS. A PAGE (Instructed by Oswald Hickson, Collier & Co EC4A 3EX) appeared on behalf of the Defendant/Appellant
MR. T SHIELDS QC & MR. R ELLIOTT (Instructed by Pattinson & Brewer, WC1N 3HA) appeared on behalf of the Respondent
Wednesday 12 April 1995
In this case the ten Plaintiffs, all of whom are Metropolitan Police Officers, claim damages for libel in respect of an article in the Police Review dated 14 February 1992. The Defendants, who are the publishers of the magazine, issued a summons under Ord. 18, r.19 and under the Court's inherent jurisdiction to strike out the action or have it dismissed on the grounds that:
"The plaintiffs would not have been identifiable to readers of the words complained of as the individuals to whom the said words were directed."
This summons was dismissed by Sir Michael Davies, sitting as a Judge of the High Court, on 16 December 1993. It is against this decision that the Defendants now appeal.
The background facts, as stated in the Statement of Claim, are as follows.
(a) The Plaintiffs are all long-serving police officers in the Metropolitan Police, and all serve as specialist dog-handlers. There are eight dog-handling sections within the Metropolitan Police and the Plaintiffs all formed part of Area 8 Dog Section, which was at all material times based at Hyde Park Police Station. This section, when fully staffed, consisted of one Inspector, two Sergeants and 24 Constables. A central figure in the story, PC Nigel Brown, had also served as a specialist dog handler in the section from 1985 until he took sick leave in or about March 1990. The Plaintiffs have all been colleagues of PC Brown, in most cases having been there at the time of his arrival or shortly thereafter, and in all cases being there in 1990 when he took sick leave and in 1992 when the article complained of was published.
(b) Of the Plaintiffs, one held the rank of Sergeant and 9 the rank of Police Constable at the material times.
(c) Prior to the publication of the article complained of, proceedings had been commenced in an Industrial Tribunal by PC Brown against the Metropolitan Police in relation to his wish not to work on Saturdays because of his Jewish faith. These proceedings had received widespread publicity in the national press and on television, and also in the Police Review itself, as will appear in more detail hereafter.
The Police Review, which describes itself as "The professional weekly journal of the British police" published the words complained of under the headline "Nazi 'humour' forces Jewish PC to quit". The text, all of which is complained of, then proceeded as follows:
"The Metropolitan Police dog handler who recently won the right not to work on Saturdays because of his Jewish faith is quitting the force amid claims of anti-Semitism among colleagues.
PC Nigel Brown, (right), [and then there is a photograph to the right] 34, said that, despite his victory at last year's industrial tribunal, anti-Jewish feeling persisted. He alleged he was threatened, if he returned to duty, he would be 'fitted up'.
'The worst example of anti-Semitism I experienced was at a Christmas party. When I entered the room they started singing the Nazi party anthem and giving the Nazi salute. They thought it was funny but I was disgusted.'
PC Brown, who has 13 years' service and 4 commendations, had overturned a new inspector's decision to stop him switching shifts with colleagues on the Sabbath.
He accepted substantial damages in an out-of- court settlement and the Met declared a new policy of allowing Jewish officers to have rosters changed, where possible, to observe their faith.
'It has been made clear to me that although I have won my case my career will not progress' PC Brown said.
'It has been suggested that someone might try to plant drugs on me. We deal with them a lot in the dog section and I cannot risk 13 years' unblemished service.'
'There are senior officers who do not like Jews and I feel it's time to get out.'"
Underneath the photograph there appears the caption in heavy
black large type:
"When I entered the room they started singing the Nazi party anthem and giving the Nazi salute… I was disgusted."
The Plaintiffs claim that in their natural and ordinary meaning, the words contained the following defamatory imputations:
"…the words were meant and were understood to mean that the Plaintiffs and each of them:
(1) had been guilty of gross anti-semitism towards one of their colleagues, PC Nigel Brown, thereby forcing him to leave the Police;
(2) had sung the Nazi Party anthem and given the Nazi salute when PC Brown entered the room at a christmas party, and thereby had been guilty of a disgraceful and shameful exhibition anti-semitism;
(3) had, after PC Brown's industrial tribunal victory when he won the right to change his duty roster to avoid working on the Jewish sabbath, threatened to fit him up by planting drugs on him if he tried to return to his dog handling section;
(4) were in a position to fit PC Brown up if they so wished because they unlawfully and improperly retained possession of drugs which they had discovered in the execution of their duty;
(5) had, by their said conduct, showed themselves to be unfit to serve as police officers."
In essence, it is plain that the two principal stings or imputations relied on are the charge of anti-semitism, particularly in relation to the Christmas party, and the charge of the threat to fit PC Brown up by planting drugs on him.
In support of their contention that the words complained of referred to, and were understood to refer to, the Plaintiffs and each of them, the Plaintiffs rely on the background facts specified above, together with the Curriculum Vitae of each Plaintiff, which is set out in a table in the Statement of Claim, which I need not read. I need only say that it shows that they consist of 9 Police Constables and one Sergeant, and that all joined Area 8 Dog-Handling Section in 1988 or earlier.
The Statement of Claim then refers to the history of PC Brown, which I have already referred to. It also says that while serving in the dog section PC Brown had been elected by his colleagues as their Police Federation Representative in 1989. The facts and matters relied upon then cite a very large number of articles in the national and other press, and also other national media publications published between May 1990 and February 1992, of which several were in the Police Review itself and of which the last two, both in the national press, appeared within a week before the publication complained of. These articles all referred to PC Brown's dispute with the Metropolitan Police, and also identified him as a dog handler who worked at the police station in Hyde Park. As a result, the Plaintiffs summarise the matters they rely upon as showing that the words referred to each Plaintiff as follows:
"In the premises the Plaintiffs will invite the Court to infer that a large but unquantifiable number of publishees of the said words would have known or been acquainted with all or some of the facts and matters set out above and in particular that the Plaintiffs were colleagues of Nigel Brown and/or members of the same dog handling section and would thereby have understood the said words to refer to the Plaintiffs and each of them.
Further, without prejudice to the contention above that a large but unquantifiable number of publishees would have understood the said words to refer to the Plaintiffs and each of them, the following persons are known to have read the said words with knowledge that the Plaintiffs were colleagues of Nigel Brown and/or members of the same dog handling section and/or members of Area 8 Dog Section based at Hyde Park Police Station and did thereby understand the said words to refer to those Plaintiffs as set out below."
Then there follows a long list of police officers, or mostly police officers, with about 20 individuals named in respect of each of the 10 Plaintiffs.
By their Defence the Defendants deny that the words referred to, or were understood to refer to, or were capable of referring to, the Plaintiffs or any of them. In support of this contention they rely on the following facts and matters:
(1) The approximate number of officers serving at Hyde Park Police Station at any time between 1985–1992 was approximately 60 officers, of which up to 35 worked in the dog section.
(2) The composition of Area 8 Dog Section was changing regularly between 1985–1992, as was the composition of the entire police officer corp serving at Hyde park Police Station.
(3) There are approximately 28,000 service police officers in the Metropolitan Police Force.
These contentions were supplemented by other alleged material facts specified in Mr. Milmo QC's Skeleton Argument as follows.
"The Plaintiffs…..had served with Area 8 Dog Section for various periods, the longest…..from July 1969, the shortest…..from August 1988.
Approximately 46 police officers served in Area 8 Dog Section for the period 1985–1990.
The Dog Section shared leisure, canteen and cloakroom facilities with other officers from Hyde Park Police Station, would mix with...
To continue reading
Request your trial