Hamilton v Clifford
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | MR JUSTICE EADY |
| Judgment Date | 22 June 2004 |
| Neutral Citation | [2004] EWHC 1542 (QB) |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division |
| Docket Number | pHQ02X02599 |
| Date | 22 June 2004 |
[2004] EWHC 1542 (QB)
Mr Justice Eady
pHQ02X02599
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
MR R HARTLEY QC AND MS S PALIN (instructed by Pinkerfields, London W4) appeared on behalf of the CLAIMANT
MR P MOLONEY QC AND MS C EVANS (instructed by Clintons, London WC2B) appeared on behalf of the DEFENDANT
The factual background to the litigation
Mr and Mrs Neil Hamilton seek remedies in respect of no less than six alleged slanders and seven alleged libels, all of which are attributed to Mr Max Clifford, who has been described as "a top publicist". In six instances what is said against him is that he spoke defamatory words to at least one journalist which led to the publication of corresponding libels in the relevant newspaper. In a distinct category are the words spoken by Mr Clifford on the morning of 15 August 2001 in the course of a GMTV interview which, if defamatory, would be classified by statute as libel rather than slander.
I need to set out each group of words separately because I shall have to address them individually for the purposes of the various applications now before me. Before doing so, however, I should set the scene briefly by explaining that the background to this flurry of journalistic activity was the arrest of Mr and Mrs Hamilton on 10 August 2001 in circumstances which attracted enormous publicity and became notorious. They had been accused of serious misconduct several months earlier by a woman called Nadine Milroy-Sloan. She dishonestly cooked up allegations that they had been present in Ilford on 5 May 2001, when she claimed to have been raped. She reported to police that they had in effect been encouraging or participating in the criminal acts. The police, of course, had no choice but to take such allegations seriously and to investigate them thoroughly, however ludicrous they might appear to the ordinary reader.
It duly emerged after a long interval that the whole thing was fantasy and no doubt motivated by a desire to make money. Miss Milroy-Sloan was eventually convicted at the Central Criminal Court and sentenced to three years' imprisonment.
Two days before the occasion of the alleged rape, she had already approached Mr Max Clifford for advice on selling a story to the tabloids and how much she could hope to make. It seems that at that stage she was seeking to implicate the Hamiltons in some sort of consensual group sexual activities, although nothing criminal was alleged. Again, it was complete fantasy.
When first confronted with the allegations, Mr Clifford saw the potential value of the story and was hoping for a "cut" of about 20 per cent for himself. But, according to the evidence, he made it clear to Miss Milroy-Sloan that she, or he if he was to represent her interests, would need proof or corroboration. Three days later on 6 May 2001 she came back with a telephone call to say that she had now been raped in their presence. Since it was clearly more appropriate to report a "rape" to the police than to "a top publicist", Mr Clifford advised her to take that course. When she went to the police it was, as I have already noted, clearly necessary for them to take her allegations at face value, however far-fetched they might appear.
Matters dragged on and there is no evidence before me of anything emerging by way of corroboration. Indeed, by early August it seems that allegations were being made which tended to undermine her story. It is said that on 11 August a witness confirmed to police officers that he had been at a party at Claridge's attended by Mr and Mrs Hamilton on the evening of 5 May; that the next day the former husband of Miss Milroy-Sloan revealed that she had a large number of debts, that she had previously made a false accusation of rape, and that she also enjoyed a wide range of sexual activities with a multiplicity of partners. It also appears that on 13 August an uncle, who had accompanied her on her visit to Max Clifford's office on 3 May, described her as a "blatant liar" who had invented the story to make money. Finally, it is said that the man she was accusing of actually committing the rape in the presence of the Hamiltons turned out to be a sufferer from arthritis who was physically incapable of adopting the kneeling position she described.
Meanwhile Mr and Mrs Hamilton were arrested for interview on 10 August 2001. It was at that stage, only, that they learned that the allegation against them was one of participating in rape. Although they were released on bail, someone had apparently informed the media and there were assembled dozens of photographers and several television crews outside the police station. There was a welter of publicity and press speculation on what had taken place. It was against that background that Mr Clifford is said to have published the defamatory allegations complained of in these proceedings.
His counsel, Mr Patrick Moloney QC, has conveniently divided them into three groupings. The first group consists of alleged slanders and newspaper libels published on 11 or 12 August 2001, the second solely of the GMTV broadcast on 15 August, and the third is a further cluster of alleged slanders and newspaper libels taking place over 20 and 21 August. It is necessary for me to set them out fairly fully in order to address the various detailed submissions made in relation to each of them.
The words complained of
In paragraphs 3 and 4 of the particulars of claim complaint is made of words spoken on 11 August to a Cole Moreton and/or other reporters from the Independent on Sunday, which found their way into the edition of 12 August:
"The police were looking into it. The fact that after three months' investigation they decided to bring the Hamiltons in —you make your own conclusions."
Paragraphs 5 and 6 are concerned with words spoken the same day to David Leppard and/or Maurice Chittenden and/or other reporters from the Sunday Times, which were duly repeated in the next day's edition of that newspaper:
"It's a difficult question really. Obviously the fact of what happened on Friday would tend to suggest that the police believe there is something in all this because they have been working on it for a few months".
In paragraph 15 are set out the words attributed to the defendant during the GMTV interview broadcast on 15 August:
"…. It did have sexual implications and did involve the Hamiltons but it was nothing criminal.
….
Secondly, you know as to whether the Hamiltons are telling the truth or not, I don't know. It's up to them. All I can say to you is this, that if I had allegations put against me at the beginning of May, I would check very carefully where I was on that day —three months ago. They suddenly remembered they were at Claridges, very strange.
…. .
Yeah, but they had over three months and they'd forgotten all about that and Christine said a few minutes ago we've never been at Claridges before. Would you not think that if you were accused of something serious, you would very carefully analyse where you were at that time?
…. .
So you know, you make up your own minds and the public will. All I would say is that when it comes to judging who's telling the truth I totally believe what the young lady told me. The police obviously believe there is something in it they wouldn't have spent all this time investigating. And what I would also say is that to who's telling the truth, their colleagues, his colleagues in Parliament when they said the same thing about Cash for Questions didn't believe them, who does believe them? Very few people, certainly the public don't. They were found guilty by their own colleagues the people that he worked with for many years, what does that say about?"
Paragraphs 7 and 8 allege that the defendant spoke words on 20 August to Alexandra Williams and/or Jan Disley and/or other reporters from The Mirror, which were incorporated in an article the following day under the heading "Hamilton rape case is still on, say police". The words are as follows:
"Nadine telephoned me after leaving the police station to say that, contrary to a press report, investigations were very much ongoing. The appointment was arranged some time ago. She said she was very happy with the police reaction and believes more than ever that she will face the Hamiltons in court."
The article continued:
"Mr Clifford … added that officers had denied reports that the Hamiltons' mobile records had put them in the clear."
On the same day it is pleaded in paragraphs 9 and 10 that the defendant made allegations to John Twomey and/or other reporters for The Daily Express which were reported the following day in that newspaper, partly in direct and partly in indirect speech:
"My client is pleased with how her police interview has gone and I am confident the case will go to trial. She was accompanied by her father for a routine discussion about the case. The investigation is ongoing and she was pleased with the discussion she had with them. She is more than ever convinced that she will face the Hamiltons in court."
Again on 20 August it is said in paragraphs 11 and 12 that the defendant spoke the following words to Daily Mail reporters which were reported in that newspaper next day:
"Miss Milroy-Sloan is more confident that than ever she will have her day in court with the Hamiltons."
Finally, in paragraphs 13 and 14 the pattern is repeated. A similar allegation is said to have been made to Tania Branigan and/or other reporters from The Guardian, which were used in an article next...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ganley v RTE
...necessary to dismiss the plaintiff's claim or to strike out the defendants' defence and such cases will be extreme cases". As Chief Justice Hamilton put it in Mercantile Credit..., the powers of the courts to secure compliance with the Rules and Orders of the court relating to discovery sho......
-
Ganley v Raidió Telifís Éireann
...court will intervene and strike out a pleading in a defamation action is to be found in the decision of Eady J. in Hamilton v. Clifford [2004] EWHC 1542 where he stated that the bar for judicial intervention was set relatively high and that a judge should intervene only if satisfied that it......
-
Patel and Another v K & J Restaurants Ltd and Another
...to Mr Albright, relying among other things on the Slander of Women Act 1891, and Shah v Standard Chartered Bank [1999] QB 241 and Hamilton v Clifford [2004] EWHC 1542 (QB) as to the risk of liability for defamation if Mr Albright had alleged to Ms Melman that she was carrying on a brothel......
-
Frank Cook v Telegraph Media Group Ltd
...held that the defence of fair comment cannot apply where the defamatory sting is a matter of verifiable fact – Hamilton v Clifford [2004] EWHC 1542 (QB) and British Chiropractic Association v Singh [2009] EWHC 1101 (subsequently reversed by the Court of Appeal)." HONEST COMMENT APPLIED TO T......
-
Tort Law
...International Ltd [2016] 3 SLR 729 at [254]. 47 The Wellness Group Pte Ltd v OSIM International Ltd [2016] 3 SLR 729 at [259]. 48 [2004] EWHC 1542 (QB) at [60], cited in The Wellness Group Pte Ltd v OSIM International Ltd [2016] 3 SLR 729 at [281]. 49 Hamilton v Clifford [2004] EWHC 1542 (Q......