Campbell-James v Guardian Media Group Plc
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | THE HON. MR JUSTICE EADY |
| Judgment Date | 12 May 2005 |
| Neutral Citation | [2005] EWHC 893 (QB) |
| Date | 12 May 2005 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division |
| Docket Number | Case No: HQ05X00329 |
[2005] EWHC 893 (QB)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
The Hon. Mr Justice Eady
Case No: HQ05X00329
Jacob Dean (instructed by Carter-Ruck) for the Claimant
Heather Rogers (instructed by Guardian Legal Department) for the Defendant
Hearing date: 28th April 2005
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.
Mr Justice Eady
This is an application made under s.3(5) of the Defamation Act 1996 for a judge to assess compensation in respect of a libel published in The Guardian on 16 th September 2004 under the eye-catching heading "UK officers linked to torture jail". This was a reference to the notorious activities at Abu Ghraib prison in Baghdad where, by this time, it was widely known that Iraqi prisoners had been systematically abused, tortured and humiliated by American soldiers. It was written by Richard Norton-Taylor.
The Claimant is Col. Jonathan Campbell-James, a distinguished soldier who has served for nearly thirty years in the Intelligence Corps. His former commanding officer speaks of him as "embodying the best traditions of the British army". He is an Arabic speaker who, at the age of 16, joined the Council for the Advancement of Arab/British Understanding. Since that time he has maintained a close interest in Arab and Middle Eastern affairs. He was a frequent visitor to the Middle East in his university days at Durham, where he read Middle-Eastern Politics and History.
The Claimant has served with two infantry battalions in Northern Ireland and also in the former Yugoslavia. During the first Gulf War in 1991 he was in Riyadh. Between 1997 and 2000 he was in Oman and was awarded the Sultan's Commendation Medal. He was posted to Iraq in February 2004 and served at the multi-national headquarters in Baghdad for six months. By the time of his arrival, the United States army had already uncovered and put a stop to the prisoner abuse which had taken place at Abu Ghraib in late 2003. It is important in the context of this case to note that the Claimant was at no stage based at Abu Ghraib or in any way responsible for the interrogation of prisoners there. When the abuse took place, he was not even in Iraq.
When the article was published Col. Campbell-James was in Italy studying International Relations and Strategic Studies. He first heard of the article when he was telephoned by Brigadier Evertson, the Director of the Intelligence Corps. He advised him to read the article, of which he had no warning at all. There is no doubt that he was one of two British officers identified in the headline as being "linked to torture jail". Precisely what the article was supposed to convey to reasonable readers is unclear. It is obscurely written, but what would undoubtedly stay in the mind is that he was identified as being linked to those notorious abuses. So as to avoid any misunderstanding, I should set out the full terms of the article as they appeared underneath the headline:
"The Ministry of Defence has admitted for the first time that senior British officers were working closely with American commanders at Abu Ghraib, the Baghdad prison where Iraqi prisoners were systematically abused and humiliated.
Two intelligence officers, Colonel Chris Terrington and Colonel Campbell James, were 'embedded within' the US unit responsible for extracting information from Iraqi prisoners, the armed forces minister, Adam Ingram, disclosed.
Col Terrington is said to have joined the intelligence chain of command at Abu Ghraib in November 2003, when many of the most serious abuses occurred.
The admission came in a parliamentary answer to Adam Price, the Plaid Cymru MP who has been pursuing the government over what Britain knew about the serious abuse of Iraqi detainees at the jail.
Mr Ingram's answer raises fresh questions about the degree of British involvement at Abu Ghraib prison, and previous explanations made by ministers.
In a second parliamentary answer, Mr Ingram insisted that 'at no time have United Kingdom officers had direct responsibility for supervising any of the US personnel posted at Abu Ghraib'.
Geoff Hoon, the defence secretary, had suggested that Britain was involved in Abu Ghraib only when the abuses were exposed this year and three officers went to investigate them.
Mr Price said yesterday that MPs should have been told immediately that British officers were integrated in the US chain of command running Abu Ghraib.
'Ministers have clearly given us a false impression about British responsibility and involvement in relation to Abu Ghraib' he said.
Mr Price, who called for an urgent statement on the issue, said it was unacceptable for ministers to 'put the best possible gloss' on what he described as a 'very disturbing' matter.
The MP said Mr Ingram's insistence that no British officers had responsibility for supervising any of the Americans there was 'completely contradicted' by evidence that was presented to an official US investigation into the abuses.
According to a barely noticed transcript of the …
'MINISTERS HAVE CLEARLY GIVEN US A FALSE IMPRESSION ABOUT BRITISH INVOLVEMENT'
… inquiry which emerged this month, British officers were directly involved in the intelligence command chain at Abu Ghraib.
The claims were made during the interrogation of one of the officers accused in the scandal, Lieutenant Colonel Steve Jordan, the US director of the joint interrogation and debriefing centre at Abu Ghraib.
Col Terrington was described as being second in command of intelligence at the prison and was told about abuses there.
Asked about his 'supervisory chain', Col Jordan replied: 'Initially, sir, it was to Colonel Steve Bolts … and then to General Fast and eventually it changed over to a new deputy, a British Colonel, Chris Tarrington [sic]'.
Colonel Jordan was questioned in February by Major General Antonio Taguba, the US officer in charge of the investigation. Asked who was then his supervisor, he replied: 'Colonel Campbell James, British colonel, just came on board'.
Asked whether he worked directly for him, Col Jordan responded: 'I work directly, sir, I'm gonna tell you, on paper I work directly for him. But between you, me and the fencepost, I work directly for Gen Fast and keep Col James informed because [of the] British versus American pecking order.'
A Ministry of Defence spokesman confirmed yesterday that Col Terrington was in the 'US intelligence chain of command'. He added: 'He was never in a post of command over Abu Ghraib or any aspect of it'.
British personnel had 'no knowledge of any specific allegations' of abuse the MoD said.
• The US military yesterday freed 275 prisoners from Abu Ghraib, the authorities said."
There is also in the middle of the article a "pull quote" in these words "Minister have clearly given us a false impression about British involvement". It is fair to say that Richard Norton-Taylor may not have been personally responsible for the headline to his article or for the choice of "pull quote". Yet it is clearly intended to be associated in the reader's mind with the headline and to suggest, in combination with it, that ministers have given a false impression in so far as they have denied any responsibility on the part of British troops for involvement in the Abu Ghraib abuses.
What is more, although the spokesman is quoted as specifically denying involvement on Col. Terrington's part, he appears to have been for some reason silent on the subject of the Claimant. If Col. Terrington was not in a post of command at Abu Ghraib, readers will wonder which British officer was "linked to torture jail" and what it was that was "disturbing". The only candidate named in the article is the Claimant. If, as is the case, he truly had nothing to do with the abuses, even indirectly by way of command responsibility, most readers would be puzzled as to how his name came to be associated with the headline and the "pull quote".
As Col. Campbell-James commented in his witness statement:
"… I was horrified by the nature of the crime of which I was being accused. I was aware of and share the widespread revulsion over the Abu Ghraib torture. The shocking pictures of abuse have undermined the rationale for intervention in Iraq generally, and indeed undermined the rationale for me personally having been in Iraq, performing the most hazardous duties. To be accused of command responsibility for such abuses is personally abhorrent and one of the worst things which could be said about a serving military officer with my professional background. Had I borne such responsibility I would rightly have been subject to the most severe military discipline. I was of course totally innocent of the allegation, not least because I was not even in Iraq until 2 months after the abuses had been exposed."
A particular source of distress was that of having to explain matters to his 12-year-old son, in order to prepare him to deal with the situation if anyone should raise it with him (e.g. at school).
By 23 rd September a letter was sent by the London solicitors the Claimant had by then instructed, pointing out the nature of the complaint and the serious implications. It referred expressly to the fact that the allegation had been picked up and republished in Le Matin, which has a significant circulation in Morocco. One of the unique features of this case, apart from the obvious implications for the Claimant's reputation, is the security risk created by the article. It is common knowledge that there was widespread outrage in the Arab world when these abuses were revealed in the media. It requires...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Martin Gilham v MGN Ltd
...and fulsome. An apology that is published late or is off-hand or only grudging is likely to lead to a reduced discount: Campbell-James v Guardian Media Group [2005] EWHC 893 (QB) [2005] EMLR 24, Veliu v Mazrekaj [2006] EWHC 1710 (QB) [2007] 1 WLR 495. (3) Whether the defendant has acted......
-
Sir Kevin Barron MP and Others v Jane Collins Mep
...and fulsome. An apology that is published late or is off-hand or only grudging is likely to lead to a reduced discount: Campbell-James v Guardian Media Group [2005] EWHC 893 (QB) [2005] EMLR 24, Veliu v Mazrekaj [2006] EWHC 1710 (QB) [2007] 1 WLR 495 (3) Whether the defendant has acted in a......
-
Zipporah Lisle-Mainwaring v Associated Newspapers Ltd (First Defendant) Kathryn Knight (Second Defendant)
...an offer of amends, and there were many aggravating factors, the discount was one third. A similar discount (35%) was made in Campbell-James v Guardian Media Group [2005] EMLR 24, where the claimant, a senior officer in the Intelligence Corps, was accused in the Guardian of being linked to ......
-
Elliot (Thomas) v Philip Flanagan
...of between 30% and 50% in cases such as Nail v Newsgroup Newspapers Ltd [2004] EWCA Civ 1708, Campbell-James v Guardian Newspapers Ltd [2005] EWHC 893, Veliu v Mazrekaj [2006] EWHC 1710, Turner v Newsgroup Newspapers Ltd [2005] EWHC 892 and KC v MGN Ltd [2013] EWCA Civ 3. I consider that th......