Control Risks Ltd v New English Library Ltd
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE NICHOLLS,SIR GEORGE WALLER,LORD JUSTICE DILLON |
| Judgment Date | 29 June 1989 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1989] EWCA Civ J0629-1 |
| Docket Number | 89/0633 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Date | 29 June 1989 |
and
and
and
[1989] EWCA Civ J0629-1
Lord Justice Dillon
Lord Justice Nicholls
and
Sir George Waller
89/0633
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
Mr. Justice Rougier
Royal Courts of Justice
MR. STEPHEN SUTTLE (instructed by Messrs Withers Crossman Block) appeared on behalf of the Respondents/Plaintiffs.
MR. RICHARD RAMPTON, Q.C. and MR. THOMAS SHIELDS (instructed by Messrs Rubinstein Callingham) appeared on behalf of the Appellants/Defendants.
Terrorism, and the kidnapping of innocent victims by terrorists, are seldom out of the news. In 1986 Mr. James Adams wrote a book on the subject, called "The Financing of Terror". The book was published by New English Library Limited. It is from this book that this defamation action has arisen.
One of the themes of the book was that the business, which has grown up in recent years, of granting insurance policies against the risk of kidnap was undesirable and contrary to the public interest. The reason put forward was that the payment of ransoms with money provided by insurance policies finances terrorism and serves to encourage further kidnappings. Something of the flavour of the outspoken criticisms expressed in the book can be gleaned from an extract from chapter 10:
"There has also been a regrettable tendency to exploit the threat of terrorism for simple profit without thought of the consequences. An example of this is Lloyd's of London, which has led the field in establishing an insurance market for those who are threatened with kidnapping by terrorists. This has proved extremely profitable for Lloyd's and for other companies that have jumped on the bandwagon. Kidnapping for ransom has also become an extremely profitable and regular source of income for terrorists around the world, and it has become a business where the terrorists do not suffer, only the victims themselves and society at large.
There are professional negotiators on both sides: the kidnap victim claims back the ransom on his/her insurance: and the insurers are happy to pay out on the odd policy since the whole scheme is so immensely profitable. Unfortunately, it is not simply a matter of a little kidnapping. Every ransom paid has a multiplying effect on the terrorist groups that have received the money. Gunmen come cheap, and with no taxes to pay much of the income can be reinvested in projects that will bring in a steady long-term income.
It is not good enough for big business to wash its hands of responsibility: they have a role to play in the fight against terrorism that, in many respects, is as important as that played by police forces and army counter-terrorist specialists. However, for business to be persuaded to act, they have to be supplied with information and that can only come from government-supplied intelligence.
There has been a tendency to divorce a government's fight against terrorism, while in some instances, for reasons that it justifies simply by pointing to improved profits, business is actually underwriting the growth in international terrorism. This should not be tolerated. In the same way as industry has the right to protection from the assaults of terrorists, so society has the right to expect that the business world will act responsibly in dealing with terrorists. Those companies that exploit terrorism for their own ends should be penalised in exactly the same way as a person who harbours a gunman on the run."
Control Risks Limited is mentioned by name in the book, and with some prominence. It is a company which provides specialist security services. It gives advice to the families, representatives and employers of kidnap victims on how the demands of kidnappers should be dealt with. Control Risks took the view that it was defamed by certain passages in the book. Hence this libel action brought by Control Risks, its parent company, its managing director, and the head of its prevention services division.
There are several passages in the book of which complaint is made. I must set them out in full:
"The boom in the kidnap business led Lloyd's, who are not usually known for their direct involvement in the more exotic end of the insurance market, to sponsor their own private counter-terrorist, anti-kidnap squad—Control Risks Ltd.…..
Control Risks' three founders were men whose backgrounds accurately reflect the current status of the organisation: Arish Turle, a former officer in the Royal Greenjackets regiment,….." (p.194).
"In fact, Control Risks and their other rival companies that have sprung up in recent years have managed to operate with remarkable freedom in extremely delicate matters with the minimum of government interference, even though some of their methods may actually do considerable damage to the work of counter-terrorists around the world." (p.195)
"Depending on the level of insurance that has been taken out, the response to a kidnapping varies. At the highest level a team—generally two people—will fly to the nearest city and take over the negotiations with the kidnappers from the family. This periodically brings them into conflict with the local police, who tend to want to set traps to catch the terrorists, while the negotiators have a different priority: to get the hostage free at the minimum cash cost." (p.197)
"The British intelligence assessment is that there will shortly be another major kidnapping, only on this occasion the victim will be shot soon after being captured, with the IRA blaming the shooting on the police or the victim. This will be followed almost immediately by a further kidnapping and this time, the IRA believe, the negotiations will be swift and the money will be paid.
If the security assessment is correct, then the outlook for Ireland is bleak. Experience elsewhere in the world has been that, when terrorists embark on a major kidnapping campaign, they are swiftly imitated by more run-of-the-mill gangsters, and a minor problem soon becomes an epidemic. With the growth in the number of kidnaps will come the increasing involvement of companies such as Control Risks….." (p.209)
"From the terrorist's point of view, kidnapping becomes especially attractive when all negotiations are done out of sight of local law enforcement agencies, which in turn must reduce the chances of capture.
The cosy relationship that has built up in many countries between negotiator and terrorist, where the independent negotiator simply moves in to seal the bargain, has done immense damage to counter-terrorism." (p.210)
"Italy has already banned kidnap negotiators from operating on its territory, and that seems to have made no difference whatsoever. Most kidnap victims are insured, and negotiators still carry on business as usual, although with slightly more discretion." (p.210–11)
The remaining two passages complained of comprise the first three sentences, and the last sentence, in the extract from chapter 10 set out above.
The plaintiffs' case is that in their natural and ordinary meaning the words of which complaint is made mean:
-
"(1) That the Plaintiffs and each of them regularly and deliberately obstruct the counter-terrorist work of local police and law-enforcement agencies, and have in consequence done immense damage to such work;
-
(2) That the Plaintiffs and each of them conduct kidnap ransom negotiations in Italy, notwithstanding that such a practice is unlawful;
-
(3) That the Plaintiffs and each of them exploit the threat of terrorism for simple profit without...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Jeyaretnam Joshua Benjamin v Lee Kuan Yew
-
Renee Wasserman v Laurence Freilich
...relating to dishonesty. So far, no other defamatory meaning has been identified in accordance with the requirement set out in Control Risks v New English Library [1990] 1 WLR 183. 18 This principle has not in any way changed following the enactment of this new statutory defence. Indeed, in ......
-
Lord Ashcroft KCMG v Stephen Foley and Others
...reasonably to be expected of someone in his political and commercial position." 16 In addition, five comment meanings (the so-called Control Risks meanings, Control Risks v New English Library Ltd [1990] 1 WLR 183 (CA), 189 per Nicholls LJ) were defended for the purposes of the honest comme......
-
Associated Newspapers Ltd v Burstein
...know to which meaning any defence of fair comment is being alleged to apply. As Nicholls LJ (as he then was) indicated in Control Risks Ltd v. New English Library Ltd [1990] 1 WLR 183 at 189 A-D, there is a parallel to be drawn between what is necessary in respect of the defence of justific......