Irene Adams, Mp V. Guardian Newspapers Limited
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judge | Lord Reed |
| Docket Number | A1660/00 |
| Date | 07 May 2003 |
| Court | Court of Session |
| Published date | 07 May 2003 |
| OUTER HOUSE, COURT OF SESSION | |
| A1660/00
| OPINION OF LORD REED in the cause IRENE ADAMS, M.P. Pursuer; against GUARDIAN NEWSPAPERS LIMITED Defenders: ________________ |
Pursuer: Cullen, Q.C., Dunlop; Balfour & Manson, Solicitors
Defenders: G M Henderson; Haig Scott & Co, W.S.
7 May 2003
Introduction
[1]In July 1997 Mr Gordon McMaster, the Member of Parliament for Paisley South, committed suicide. The pursuer was at the time (and remains) the Member of Parliament for Paisley North. She and Mr McMaster were colleagues in the Labour Party, and were also close friends. On 4 April 1998 the Observer newspaper, which is published by the defenders, printed in its Scottish edition an article by its Scotland Editor, Mr Dean Nelson, under the headline:
"Graham accuses rival MP of 'leaking' suicide letter".
The article was in the following terms:
"Paisley North MP Irene Adams leaked confidential details of Gordon McMaster's suicide letter to Prime Minister Tony Blair, according to her bitter rival, the West Renfrewshire MP Tommy Graham.
His claim is the first of a series threatened by the MP after his explusion from the Labour Party last month. It will cause dismay among party leaders who hoped he would go quietly. They fear that a prolonged legal challenge over his explusion and a return to internecine warfare in Paisley will cast a long shadow over their Scottish Parliament election campaign next May.
Solicitors acting for Graham will start preparing a case for a judicial review of the decision to expel him when the MP returns from holiday on Tuesday. They had been waiting to receive a detailed explanation from the party's National Constitutional Committee.
Graham has confirmed he will also begin libel actions against two newspapers and launch his own Website to chronicle his campaign by the end of the month.
McMaster, the Paisley South MP, was found dead in the garage of his Johnstone home in July last year. He had committed suicide by inhaling exhaust fumes. A number of suicide notes were discovered, typed on his home computer, which accused Graham and fellow MP Don (now Lord) Dixon, a councillor and a local newspaper reporter, of mounting a whispering campaign against him.
One of the letters, addressed to Blair, Scottish Secretary Donald Dewar and then Chief Whip Nick Brown, was taken by Adams, a friend of McMaster, but was selectively leaked to the Daily Mail and Scotland on Sunday before being delivered by hand to the Chief Whip.
Brown confirmed the letter had been leaked before it was handed to him to pass to Blair, but emphasised that 'no copy of the note was leaked by the Government'.
Graham was suspended from the Parliamentary Labour Party after the Prime Minister ordered an investigation into the affair by Brown. According to Graham, Brown told him he would soon be cleared and his suspension lifted during a meeting at Graham's MP's home.
Graham said he was also told that the letter had been leaked before being passed to Blair. 'Nick Brown told us that the two newspapers had "cherry-picked" the suicide letter and assured us that the Prime Minister had not received the letter until after the newspaper articles appeared. Irene Adams took the letters to London herself. There is no way Gordon's family leaked the letter and no way the Prime Minister was involved', Graham told The Observer.
He said he believed Adams had waged a campaign against him because he had not supported her in the selection contest to fight Paisley North after the death of her husband and because his agent stood against her.
Adams denied she had leaked the letter. 'The letter had been left on the window of his [McMaster's] car. I took the letter to the Chief Whip three days after [his death]', she said.
Graham was eventually cleared of any responsibility for McMaster's suicide but remained suspended after new allegations that he tried to smear Adams".
[2]In the present action, the pursuer seeks to recover damages from the defenders for defamation. The action came before me at a hearing on Procedure Roll, at which both parties sought to have certain preliminary pleas sustained or repelled.
1.Defamatory meaning
[3]Counsel for the defenders invited me in the first place to sustain the defenders' general plea to the relevancy of the pursuer's averments, on the ground that the words complained of were not defamatory and were not capable of bearing a defamatory meaning. Counsel submitted that whether it was defamatory to state that a person leaked a confidential document depended on whether the document was in fact confidential. In relation to the latter point, counsel drew my attention to an admission made by the pursuer in her pleadings:
"Admitted that the [suicide] note was addressed to a number of people, including the deceased's parents, the Prime Minister, the Chief Whip, Mr and Mrs Allison [the former being Mr McMaster's constituency secretary, and the latter being the Provost of Paisley], the pursuer and two newspapers".
Counsel submitted that the implication of that admission was that the suicide note was intended by Mr McMaster to be published. The note was therefore not confidential, and the newspaper article was therefore not defamatory.
[4]In reply, counsel for the pursuer described this submission as "bizarre". The pursuer was alleged to have broken a confidence by leaking confidential details of a suicide note left by a friend of hers. Such an allegation would plainly tend to lower the pursuer in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally (applying the test proposed by Lord Atkin in Sim v Stretch (1936) 52 T.L.R.669). Whether the letter was or was not confidential was beside the point: what was relevant was that the article categorised it as confidential.
[5]In my opinion the defenders' submission on this point is misconceived. The issue is whether the imputation contained in the words complained of would tend to affect the pursuer adversely in the estimation of others. The truth or otherwise of the imputation is not germane to that question; and the falseness of a defamatory imputation does not deprive it of its defamatory character.
[6]In the event that I rejected counsel for the defenders' submissions on this issue, counsel for the pursuer invited me to sustain the pursuer's plea to the relevancy of the defenders' averments, in respect of the defenders' averment:
"Explained and averred that the words used in the article complained of are not defamatory of the pursuer and are incapable of bearing a defamatory meaning".
[7]Whether the words complained of are capable of bearing a defamatory meaning is a question of law; and I am in no doubt that that question must be answered in the affirmative. Whether the words complained of are defamatory of the pursuer is a question of fact; but that should not be confused with the question whether the defenders' averment that "the words ... are not defamatory of the pursuer" is relevant and specific, which is a question of law. The words complained of are, on their face, defamatory of the pursuer. There might be, in theory at least, a variety of grounds on which it could be said that the words were not in fact defamatory of the pursuer (e.g. that they referred to another individual bearing the same name, or that they bore an inoffensive meaning in the particular circumstances); but no such grounds are averred. Counsel for the defenders explained in his submissions the basis upon which it was averred that the words were not defamatory of the pursuer; and that basis is, as I have said, misconceived. In these circumstances I conclude that the averment in question is irrelevant and lacking in specification.
2.Damages
[8]Counsel for the defenders next invited me to "delete" the pursuer's averments of damage, which are in the following terms:
"The pursuer has suffered injury to her feelings, standing and reputation as a result of the false and calumnious representations by the defenders as hereinbefore condescended upon. The representations caused and continue to cause distress to the pursuer. The pursuer is a well-known figure amongst the general public in Scotland. She has been a Member of Parliament since 1990. She sits on the Parliamentary Select Committee for Scottish Affairs. She is a member of the Chairman's Panel. She is a Justice of the Peace in Paisley. The defenders' newspaper has a wide circulation in Scotland. Much publicity has been given in recent times to allegations of 'sleaze', or improper conduct, on the part of Members of Parliament. The pursuer has throughout observed the highest standards of conduct. In the course of her work as a Member of Parliament she is often in receipt of confidential information. In such circumstances, the allegation that the pursuer betrayed a confidence is an extremely damaging one to the pursuer's professional standing and reputation. Despite being called upon to publish an apology for the article, the defenders have repeatedly refused to do so".
In inviting me to delete these averments, counsel for the defenders relied upon another admission in the pursuer's pleadings:
"With reference to the defenders' averments in answer, admitted that the pursuer raised an action in England against the defenders arising out of the said article. Admitted that the case was heard before Master Eyre, under explanation that he dealt only with the defenders' motion to stay the proceedings. The judgment of 8 November 1999 is referred to for its terms, which are admitted ....".
Counsel for the defenders referred to the judgment in question, in which Master Eyre granted a stay of the English proceedings on the basis of forum non conveniens, Scotland being considered to be the appropriate forum. Counsel drew attention to the following passage in the judgment:
"The particulars of her claim include the allegation that the article was extremely damaging to her reputation and her ability to hold herself out as a trustworthy and...
To continue reading
Request your trial