Frank Cook v Telegraph Media Group Ltd
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Justice Tugendhat |
| Judgment Date | 29 March 2011 |
| Neutral Citation | [2011] EWHC 763 (QB) |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division |
| Docket Number | Case No: HQ10D01492 |
| Date | 29 March 2011 |
[2011] EWHC 763 (QB)
The Honourable Mr Justice Tugendhat
Case No: HQ10D01492
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Mr Jonathan Crystal (instructed by Hill Dickinson LLP) for the Claimant
Mr David Price (of David Price Solicitors and Advocates) for the Defendant
Hearing dates: 25 February 2011
Mr Justice Tugendhat:
On 17 September 2006 an MP's assistant made a £5 offertory donation at a Battle of Britain church service in Stockton. That simple act has led to this libel action.
The Claimant ("Mr Cook") was the Member of Parliament for Stockton North from 1983 until May 2010. He reimbursed his assistant. He then included the £5 in his own claim for reimbursement of his expenses as an MP. His claim was rejected. At the time that appeared to be the end of the matter. But it became an issue in 2009 when the Defendant ("the Telegraph") published its series of articles on MPs'expenses. They attracted very wide publicity at that time, and have been much discussed subsequently. In the case of a number of MPs the Telegraph and others alleged that they had acted dishonestly. In the present case there is no allegation that Mr Cook acted dishonestly.
In the issue of the Sunday Telegraph dated 31 May 2009 the Telegraph published three articles, on three separate pages, each of which Mr Cook claims was defamatory of him. Mr Cook sued for libel, issuing his Claim Form nearly one year later on 20 April 2010. The Defence and Reply are dated respectively 16 July 2010 and 28 September 2010. However, the case has not proceeded to trial, as it might have done.
On 18 November 2010 the Telegraph issued the Application Notice now before me. The Telegraph asks for summary judgment on the ground that Mr Cook has no real prospect of rebutting the three defences it has raised. They are justification (or truth), honest comment, and the public interest defence generally referred to as a Reynolds defence ( Reynolds v Times Newspapers Ltd [2001] 2 AC 127).
THE THREE ARTICLES COMPLAINED OF
The first of the three articles is headed "MP claimed £5 for church collection" ("the front page article"). The second is under the title "I'm sorry, church claim was unfair" ("the page 2 article"). The third is under the title "COMMENT AND ANALYSIS —Now it is the people's turn to be heard" ("the Leader").
The words complained of and the meanings which Mr Cook attributes to them are set out in paras 3 to 8 of the Particulars of Claim. They are as follows.
The front page article reads:
"MP claimed £5 for church collection
An M.P. used his expenses to claim for a £5 donation he made during a church service to commemorate the Battle of Britain.
Frank Cook a Labour backbencher sought reimbursement on his office expenses after the memorial service in his constituency town of Stockton On Tees. It was rejected by the parliamentary fees Office.
The controversial claim was one of a series made by M.Ps that can be disclosed today, including reimbursement for carpets bought in India, sweets bought by a former party leader and office expenses used for household items …
Today the Sunday Telegraph discloses the expense claims of members of parliament who represent low "value-for-money" when their voting records, participation in parliamentary debates and number of questions they ask are compared to their total level of expenses.
The most extraordinary was made by Mr Cook who tried to claim for £5 he gave at a Battle of Britain memorial service. A handwritten note attached to the claim by way of a receipt stated "Battle of Britain church service, Sunday 17.09.06. £5 contribution to offertory on behalf of Frank Cook M.P."
The fees office wrote on his claim "Not Allowed" and refused to pay out on the claim ….
It is particularly embarrassing because Mr Cook is an official supporter of the campaign to commemorate Air Chief Marshall Sir Keith Park who commanded the RAF's 11 Group Fighter Command during the Battle of Britain".
The front page article was accompanied by a photograph of the Claimant, with a reproduction of an extract from the Claimant's member's reimbursement form and of the receipt for £5 with the caption:
"Frank Cook, the Labour M.P., in flight gear. Despite
Battle of Britain".
The page 2 article reads:
"I'm sorry, church claim was unfair
Mr Cook last night said he could not remember making the claim but apologised for doing so. His claim for the donation is particularly embarrassing because he is an official supporter of the campaign to commemorate Air Chief Marshall Sir Keith Park who commanded 11 Group Fighter Command RAF at the Battle of Britain.
He is also a former member of the Commons Defence select committee and his son Andrew is a serving soldier with the Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers.
Mr Cook who was deselected as a candidate for the next general election by his local constituency party in 2008 after more than 24 years representing Stockton North is among the 20 MPs who represent poor value for money to taxpayers.
Despite claiming total expenses last year of £153,902 which included travel, home office and staffing costs Mr Cook turned up to just 44% of votes in Parliament, spoke 11 times and submitted four questions to ministers …
Last year Mr Cook a former gravedigger, Butlins Redcoat and special needs teacher received £23,083 of taxpayers' money to run his second home in Camberwell, south London … "
The page 2 article was accompanied by a photograph of the Claimant with the caption:
"Worthy causes: Frank Cook at Westminster before a charity run. The former gravedigger said claiming for a £5 church collection was 'unjustified'".
The part of the Leader which is complained of reads:
"COMMENT AND ANALYSIS
Now it is the people's turn to be heard
When, as we report today, one Labour MP thinks it is appropriate to claim back from taxpayers the £5 he put in a church collection for an RAF charity, the most obvious conclusion that Labour is made up of people who will destroy the ethic of selfless public service.
If the expenses scandal had revealed flaws of character and judgement in individual MPs, it has not revealed a fundamental flaw with Britain's basic system of representative democracy. None of those who made disgraceful claims were forced to do so by "the system", for there were plenty of MPs who only made claims that are beyond reproach. The difference between those who put their snouts in the trough, and those who did not, is that the individual who make up the first group decided to claim what they thought they could get away with, rather than what they could justify to their constituents".
The meanings attributed by Mr Cook to the front page article and the page 2 article are the same, namely:
"(i) the Claimant represented low "value-for-money" as a parliamentarian;
(ii) the Claimant's claim for £5 was an extraordinary abuse of M.Ps' expenses and was particularly embarrassing and hypocritical having regard to his official support of the campaign to commemorate a Battle of Britain hero."
The meaning attributed by Mr Cook to the Leader is:
"(i) the Claimant thought it appropriate to claim back from taxpayers the £5 he put in a church collection for an RAF charity;
(ii) the Claimant set out to exploit the expenses system for his own gain in disregard of his constituents' views."
The meaning in which the Telegraph pleads that each of the front page article and the page 2 article is true is:
"10.1 The Claimant claimed on expenses a £5 offertory donation for an RAF charity made during a memorial service to commemorate the Battle of Britain.
10.2 The claim was an extraordinary abuse of the expense system.
10.3 It was particularly embarrassing to the Claimant.
10.4 It was inconsistent with the nature of a church offertory and the Claimant's support of the armed forces.
10.5 It was justifiable to describe the Claimant as a low value for money MP."
The meaning in which the Telegraph pleads that the Leader is true is in part the same, namely as in paras 10.1 and 10.2 of the Particulars of Claim cited above, with the following additional meanings:
"17.2 The donation claim is a prime example of an MP claiming what he thought he could get away with, rather than what he could justify to his constituents.
17.3 … the [Telegraph] will, if necessary, allege that the Claimant set out to exploit the expenses system for his own gain in disregard of his constituents' views".
In relation to the first two articles complained of, the words relied on by the Telegraph as comment are "controversial", "the most extraordinary" claim, "particularly embarrassing" and low "value for money" MP. In relation to the leader, the Telegraph identifies as comment the following:
"16.1 The Claimant thought it appropriate to make the donation.
16.2 Such conduct is destructive of the ethic of selfless public service.
16.3 The donation claim is a prime example of an MP claiming what he thought he could get away with, rather than what he could justify to his constituents."
MATTERS NOT IN DISPUTE
Mr Cook admits that he made the claim for reimbursement of £5, but he states that he did so by mistake.
There is no dispute that on 17 September 2006 Mr Cook's assistant attended the Battle of Britain Church Service in Stockton. He made a donation of £5 on behalf of Mr Cook and provided Mr Cook with a receipt. Mr Cook reimbursed him that sum the next day. On 30 September 2006 Mr Cook submitted a form C1 headed "Incidental Expenses Provision: Member's reimbursement form" to the Parliamentary Fees Office.
At the head of the form there is an instruction "When to use this form". It states "Use this form to ask us to reimburse you for costs you have...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Simon Blake v Laurence Fox
...rank and dignity’ ( Blackstone's Commentary on the Laws of England, Book III at p.379, as cited in Cook v Telegraph Media Group Ltd [2011] EWHC 763 (QB) [101]) that is, will be predisposed to favour and adopt the views of his own senior colleagues in the judiciary. The Defendant does not k......
-
Yeo v Times Newspapers Ltd
...cases. Those cited or referred to on this application were Fiddes v Channel Four Television Corporation [2010] 1 WLR 2245 (CA), Cook v Telegraph Media Group [2011] EWHC 763 (QB) and Lewis v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2012] EWHC 1391 (QB). Others are cited in a passage in G......
-
Gregory v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis
...69(1), such as with section 69(3), how should the court's discretion be exercised? In Frank Cook v Telegraph Media Group Limited [2011] EWHC 763 (QB). Tugendhat J quoted May LJ in Armstrong v Times Newspapers Ltd, that contemporary practice is against juries. Later in the judgment, Tugendha......
-
Church v MGN Ltd
...so dispose of the application, and the agreement followed a hearing in which I had been asked to determine other matters. See Cook v Telegraph Media Group [2011] EWHC 1143 (QB) at para 2. 30 The reason why Mr Warby submits that I should have dealt with this application without a hearing is ......