Jacqueline Thompson (Claimant and Part 20 Defendant) v Mark James (First Defendant and Part 20 Claimant) Carmarthenshire County Council (Second Defendant)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | The Honourable Mr Justice Tugendhat,Mr Justice Tugendhat |
| Judgment Date | 15 March 2013 |
| Neutral Citation | [2013] EWHC 515 (QB) |
| Date | 15 March 2013 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division |
| Docket Number | Case No: HQ11D04250 |
[2013] EWHC 515 (QB)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
The Honourable Mr Justice Tugendhat
Case No: HQ11D04250
Ms Christina Michalos (instructed by Simons Muirhead & Burton) for the Claimant
Mr Adam Speker (instructed by Slater & Gordon) for the Defendant
Hearing dates: 13, 14, 15, 18, 19, 20 February 2013
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.
The Claimant ("Mrs Thompson") sues Carmarthenshire County Council ("the Council") and its Chief Executive ("Mr James") for a libel in a letter which he wrote on 28 July 2011, and which he published to the Councillors, and to the readers of a blog maintained by a Mr Milan under the name "madaxeman". Mr James alone has counterclaimed (under CPR r20) for libel in respect of five postings which Mrs Thompson has put on the blog she maintains, and which she first put on her blog on 28 February, 22 March, 6 April, 1 June and 14 July 2011. The words complained of in respect of 6 April have been removed, but the other words complained of have remained there.
Mrs Thompson is a 50 year old housewife who looks after the youngest of her four children who is still living at home, and a smallholding in Llanwrda, Carmarthen. She became a community councillor in Llandwra in 2010, and is vice chair of the community council and chair of the Community Association. She stood unsuccessfully for the County Council in 2012, against the incumbent Mr Theophilus.
The circumstances out of which this dispute arose include eight planning applications. The first three were made by Mrs Thompson and her husband Mr Kerry Thompson ("Mr Thompson") for themselves, and they were all approved. They were in 1988 (for a forestry contractor's dwelling), in 1990 (for a bungalow) and in 2000 (for an agricultural implement shed). The next three were made by Mrs Thompson's brother-in-law Mr Eddie Thompson, with the assistance of Mrs Thompson, and they were all refused. They were made in March 2004 E/06601 and April 2005 E/09739 (in each case for a forestry/agricultural bungalow), and in December 2005 E/ 11853 (for a temporary caravan). Eddie Thompson works as an agricultural and forestry contractor. He appealed the refusal in E/09739, but the appeal was dismissed. The seventh application (for a storage shed) was by Mrs and Mr Thompson for themselves. It was made in May 2006 E/ 13192 and was refused on 11 July 2006. The last application was by Mr Eddie Thompson in October 2007 E/ 17614. It was for a bungalow. It was refused on 12 February 2008 and an appeal was dismissed on 12 November 2008.
The following is a summary of some of the findings of fact that I have made in this case.
From 1 March 2006 onwards Mrs Thompson wrote a series of letters accusing the Head of Planning for the Council, Mr Eifion Bowen ("Mr Bowen"), of professional misconduct and corruption. These letters were for the most part co-signed by Mr Thompson and on some occasions also by Eddie Thompson. Mr James warned her as early as 8 March 2006 that the Council was not prepared to accept any form of intimidation or harassment of officers or Councillors. But Mrs Thompson continued to write letters.
On 13 October 2006 she accused Mr Bowen and Mr James himself of corruption. Mr James had had no involvement in the planning decisions about which Mrs Thompson complained. All he had done was to write the letter of 8 March. Mrs Thompson published her allegations widely by e-mail, including to the media in Wales as well as to the elected Councillors. On 18 October 2006 Mrs and Mr Thompson sent a letter which they copied to the media. In November 2006 Mr Bowen (but not Mr James) sued Mrs and Mr Thompson for libel in respect of the letter of 18 October which he complained meant that there were strong grounds to suspect that he had repeatedly acted corruptly regarding planning applications.
Mrs and Mr Thompson filed a Defence. Neither in their Defence, nor on any other occasion, has Mrs Thompson sought to prove that any of her allegations of corruption are true. The defence she pleaded was honest comment. The defence of honest comment was struck out by the court. Mrs and Mr Thompson agreed to settle the action on the basis that they made a public retraction and apology in open court, which they did on 15 October 2007. They also agreed to pay £7,500 towards Mr Bowen's costs. Mrs and Mr Thompson are of very modest means, and they have been paying that sum by instalments.
However, in an attempt to avoid having to pay the costs, they first asked, through their solicitor, that Mr Bowen should ask the Council to pay his costs (and promised they would keep that confidential). The Council refused to give an indemnity, and Mr Bowen's solicitors so informed Mrs and Mr Thompson. In the summer of 2008 Mrs Thompson came into possession of a copy of a letter from Her Majesty's Court Service ("HMCS") bearing two receipt stamps of the Council, which she referred to as "the stamped document". She and Mr Thompson claimed that this document was proof that the Council had in fact paid Mr Bowen's costs, and so, they alleged, that Mr Bowen and the Council had lied to them. The document proved nothing of the kind. At a hearing in the High Court on 22 September 2008 Flaux J made a finding that the Council had not paid Mr Bowen's costs. Mrs and Mr Thompson did not accept that finding. They continued to claim that the Council and a number of its officers had lied. They added allegations of perjury to the allegations of misconduct and corruption that they had previously made, and they published these widely by e-mail.
In March 2009 Mrs Thompson started a blog under the title "Carmarthenshire Planning Problems and more". The letters she wrote before that date, and the postings on her blog, show that she is articulate and literate, and well able to master legal documents and legal procedures. Her blog was nominated in 2010 as a finalist in the Media Wales "Wales Blog Awards" for the Best Community Blog Award, and in 2011 for the Best Political Blog. This suggests that the blog has a significant readership.
No one has to give an explanation or justification for maintaining a blog. But two years later, in March 2011 Mrs Thompson chose to explain why she started and maintained her blog. She wrote:
"Initially it was out of a sense of frustration and injustice over both the planning system in Carmarthenshire as well as the circumstances around the libel case and the subsequent changes to the county's constitution".
Her postings are all highly critical of the Council. The Council and Mr James do not, of course, suggest that there is anything unlawful about Mrs Thompson maintaining a blog which is critical of the Council. Everyone is entitled to publish to the world opinions that they honestly hold about matters of public interest. Everyone is entitled to state facts which are true. The complaint that Mr James made in letters to Mrs and Mr Thompson is that what Mrs Thompson has written repeatedly includes statements of fact which are false, and for which she has no foundation, namely allegations of corruption, lying and perjury, and misappropriation of public money. The Welsh Audit Office, and others who Mrs Thompson has asked to investigate, have all assured her that the Council did not indemnify Mr Bowen for the costs of his libel action against her. But she has, until the trial, refused to accept that.
At the trial she did accept that, but she has not removed from her blog any of the allegations of corruption etc that she has been making for the last seven years. Mr Bowen, Mr James and Mr Thomas all gave evidence and Ms Michalos did not suggest to any of them that they had lied or committed perjury. Mrs Thompson in her evidence said:
"It is not my evidence that I believed they did [ie that the Council funded Mr Bowen's action]. I don't know but I'm prepared to give the Council the benefit of the doubt".
In February 2011 matters took a new turn. The Department for Communities and Local Government issued a letter to all Councils in England encouraging them to allow filming of their proceedings. The Council had, until this point, only allowed filming of their proceedings in very limited circumstances. Mrs Thompson asked for permission to film, and she was refused. She decided to film proceedings of the Council using her mobile phone.
Up until the start of the trial of this action it appeared that one of the issues that I would have to decide would be whether or not Mrs Thompson was acting lawfully when she filmed the proceedings of the Council. But for reasons explained below, it has become common ground between the parties that I do not have to, and should not, decide that question.
The first occasion on which Mrs Thompson filmed proceedings of the Council was on 28 February 2011. She posted the clips on YouTube. No one appears to have noticed that she was doing it at the time. The second occasion was on 31 March 2011, when she was asked to stop. The third occasion was on 13 April 2011. On this occasion a council officer, a Mr Davies, was sent up to the Public Gallery to ask her to stop. What happened next has given rise to one of the few disputes of fact in this case. I have found that when she had left the Public Gallery and gone home Mrs Thompson made an allegation to the police that, while they were together in the Public Gallery, Mr Davies had assaulted her and attempted to steal her mobile phone. I...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Neil McEvoy v Michael Costas Michael
...at least in general terms, the facts on which it is based." 55 As to whether a publication is defamatory, I refer to Thompson v James and Carmarthenshire County Council [2013] EWHC 515 (QB), where Tugendhat J said this: "266. The definition of defamatory commonly used is that given by Sir T......
-
Zam v CFW and Another
...were very few, and Ms Hermitage was found to have a genuine grievance and succeeded in her defence of truth) and Thompson v James [2013] EWHC 515 (QB) para [337] (where the numbers of publishees were in the low hundreds). Even in Jameel v Dow Jones [2005] QB 946; [2005] EWCA Civ 75 para [1......
-
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and asylum chamber), 2022-12-09, [2023] UKUT 00074 (IAC) (YSA (Anonymity of Barristers))
...vilification” [sic]. He cites The Law Society v Kordowski [2011] EWHC 3185 (QB), Thompson v James and Carmarthenshire County Council [2013] EWHC 515 (QB), Coulson v Wilby [2014] EWHC 3404 (QB), Oliver v Shaikh [2019] EWHC 3389 (QB), and Abbasi v Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation ......
-
Sir Gerry Loughran v Century Newspapers Limited
... ... ; -and- CENTURY NEWSPAPERS LIMITED Defendant. ________ GILLEN J Introduction [1] This ... 9 of that edition (hereinafter called the first and second articles), on-line at ... [5] The plaintiff, pursuant to Order 20 Rule 5 of the Rules of the Court of Judicature ... 870 (QB) Bokker v RSPB [2011] EWHC 73 Thompson v James [2013] EWHC (QB) Three Rivers DC v Bank ... going to support bad faith on the part of the defendant. It needs to be pleaded with ... ...
-
Table of Cases
...129, 135, 152, 169, 223, 228, 236, 237–38, 239, 240, 241, 243, 249, 255, 256, 257, 258, 288, 328, 402, 403 Thompson v James & Anor, [2013] EWHC 515 (QB) ..........................................................30–32 Toronto Star Newspapers Ltd v Canada, [2010] 1 SCR 721, 2010 SCC 21 ............
-
Campaigns of Vilification and Defamation
...in several decisions. CAMPAIGN EXAMPLES Campaigns Against Public Oicials, Civil Servants, and Politicians Thompson v James & Anor , [2013] EWHC 515 (QB) at paras 406–12 and 423: 406. Mrs Thompson’s campaign of harassment and libel is the most recent of a number of cases which have recently ......