James Palmer v PC Colin Farmer
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Justice Saini |
| Judgment Date | 28 April 2023 |
| Neutral Citation | [2023] EWHC 976 (KB) |
| Docket Number | Case No: QB-2021-004156 |
| Court | King's Bench Division |
| Year | 2023 |
[2023] EWHC 976 (KB)
THE HONOURABLE Mr Justice Saini
Case No: QB-2021-004156
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
KING'S BENCH DIVISION
MEDIA AND COMMUNICATIONS LIST
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Jenan Jaafar (Direct Access) for the Claimant
Kate Wilson (instructed by South London Legal Partnership) for the Third and Fourth Defendants
Hearing date: 25 April 2023
Approved Judgment
This judgment is in 5 main parts as follows:
| I. Overview: | paras.[1]–[5]. |
| II. The Facts: | paras.[6]–[31]. |
| III. The Libel Claims: | paras.[32]–[53]. |
| IV. The MPI Claims: | paras.[54]–[62]. |
| V. Conclusion: | paras.[63]–[64]. |
I. Overview
The Third Defendant (“D3”) and the Fourth Defendant (“D4”) (collectively, “the Defendants”) have made applications for summary judgment and/or a striking out of the Claimant's claims for libel and misuse of private information (“MPI”). I will refer to the Claimant as “Mr Palmer”. His claim was commenced on 5 November 2021 and arises out of the content of emails sent in November 2019, internally within D3 and D4. Those emails pasted and relayed an email (as part of a chain) sent, unsolicited, to D3 by a police officer, PC Colin Farmer. PC Farmer's email included a false statement to the effect that Mr Palmer had been “convicted for a sexual offence”. Mr Palmer has settled his claims against PC Farmer (“D1”) and the Metropolitan Police Service (“D2”, or “the MPS”), as I describe further below.
The Defendants' applications are made on the conventional CPR Part 24.2 basis, and alternatively under CPR 3.4(2)(a). D3 and D4 additionally rely on what is known as the Jameel abuse jurisdiction for dismissal of these claims: Jameel v Dow Jones & Co. [2005] EWCA Civ 75; [2005] QB 946.
Mr Palmer responded to the applications by making his own application to amend his Particulars of Claim (“POC”). In accordance with established principles, I first considered whether the claim in proposed amended form (“the APOC”) was viable and therefore should proceed to trial.
Before I heard the applications a Statement in Open Court was read and I approved a consent order compromising the proceedings against D1 and D2. They, as the originators of the allegations, have apologised unreservedly for making untrue and inaccurate statements concerning Mr Palmer. An offer of amends was made and accepted. Substantial damages and costs have been paid to him by D1 and D2 in relation to libel and MPI. The quantum of damages was not stated in court but was disclosed to Counsel for the Defendants, and to me, following my request. That figure is relevant to the Jameel application as regards both the libel and MPI claims against D3 and D4.
Following conclusion of the oral submissions on 25 April 2023, I indicated I would not permit the amendments to the Particulars of Claim, as regards the libel and MPI claims, and would grant the applications of D3 and D4 to dismiss these claims. These are my reasons.
II. The Facts
The basic facts are not in dispute. I take my summary below principally from the Claimant's pleadings and statements, and aspects of the Defendants' evidence which did not appear to be contested or were plainly credible, and/or were based on contemporaneous documents. The facts fall within a fairly narrow compass. I will avoid any conclusions on matters which, applying Part 24 principles, are properly matters which should only be resolved at trial.
D4 is the local authority for the London Borough of Sutton. D3 is an Arms-Length Management Organisation established by D4 for the purpose of managing its housing stock.
Mr Palmer lives in a property which is owned by D4 and managed, on D4's behalf, by D3. His mother was D4's tenant until she died in February 2020. Mr Palmer lived at the property with his mother and half-brother.
Between around 2017 and 2019, Mr Palmer made numerous complaints about a neighbour, including complaints of noise and the smell of cannabis. According to D3, no evidence was found to corroborate the complaint of drug use on unannounced visits by housing officers and the police. D3 says that the noise from ordinary household activities was an unfortunate feature of the relevant housing. I make no findings in relation to these matters. They are not relevant to the issues before me. Mr Palmer clearly holds genuine and strong views on this issue.
Mr Palmer raised complaints with D3 about his housing, including about how D3 had dealt with his complaints, using its complaints process. He was not satisfied with the outcome.
On 30 April 2019, Mr Palmer emailed Simon Latham (“Mr Latham”) to complain about what he regarded as D3's unsatisfactory responses to his complaints. Mr Latham is D4's senior client officer for D3. The complaints were also brought to Mr Latham's attention by local politicians (an MP and Councillor) on behalf of Mr Palmer. The evidence is clear that by November 2019 considerable attention from senior personnel with the Defendants was being given to Mr Palmer's complaints.
These complaints were to be discussed at a Community Multi-Agency Risk Assessment Conference (“Community MARAC”). I understand that these are multi-agency meetings held monthly with a wide remit to consider issues relating to community matters. Chris Lyons, a D4 employee, was the Community Safety Manager and the lead officer in coordinating Community MARACs. I will return to Mr Lyons below.
On 5 or 6 November 2019, PC Colin Farmer of the MPS who worked in the Safer Neighbourhood Team for the area where Mr Palmer lived sent an email to Ms Amato (“the Farmer Email”). This document is the foundation for the claims before me. It was in the following terms (my underlining and redaction of email addresses):
“On Wed, 6 Nov at 17:17 [REDACTED] Laura Amato wrote:
Hi All
Update, tenants son (James Palmer) has not only sent a lengthy email to us, councillors, LBS but also emailed the Police Inspector directly and it was discussed at the MARAC this afternoon. It was agreed by all at MARAC that a joint letter is drafted and sent by MARAC on behalf of all professionals involved. The police are concerned for James' mental health and also our tenant, Sara Palmer's welfare (ongoing cancer treatment and at her wits end). MARAC are looking at support for both James, Sara and moving the tenant upstairs as soon as possible. We have been asked to not send any response but to await the draft from MARAC which will be sent to Sarah Howard (enforcement officer). Hope this is OK. It makes sense to send a response on behalf of all professionals. I have pasted below the correspondence from the Police just FYI. I am visiting James Palmer with the SNT tomorrow.
Lara
From: Clifton Phillip N.D – SN-CU [REDACTED] Sent: 05 November 2019 20:15
To: Farmer Colin – SN-CU [REDACTED]1
Subject: RE: ASB
Thanks Colin, I will send him back an e-mail.
From: Farmer Colin – SN-CU [REDACTED] Sent: 05 November 2019 16:39
To: Clifton Phillip N.D – SN-CU [REDACTED]
Subject: RE: ASB
Guv, I know about it, we have a planned visit with Sutton Housing tomorrow, his mother is fed up with him making these complaints, she has no issues with the neighbour upstairs and he is obsessed with police/authority. The neighbour he is complaining about has been spoken to by us several times with no evidence of cannabis use and also response have attended when he has called us about noise complaints, again no evidence of drug misuse. He was a police cadet but was turned down as a police officer as he was convicted for a sexual offence I believe.
Colin”.
The Farmer Email included a complaint sent by Mr Palmer on 1 November 2019 to PC Farmer's superior officer in the MPS, Inspector Clifton, copied to a local Councillor assisting Mr Palmer, and subsequent exchanges. As I have underlined above, PC Farmer's response to Inspector Clifton concluded with the words “ he [Mr Palmer] was convicted for a sexual offence I believe”. The above information was not a response to any request from Ms Amato, but was sent on to her unsolicited (as part of the exchange between the two MPS officers).
On 6 November 2019, a Community MARAC was held where Mr Palmer's complaint was discussed. D3 was represented by Sarah Howard, the anti-social behaviour officer. Ms Amato did not attend that meeting. There is no evidence that anyone at that meeting was aware of the Farmer Email or its contents.
Later that same day, Ms Amato emailed 5 people, namely her line manager, 3 more senior staff at D3, and Mr Latham at D4 (“the Amato Email”). Ms Amato had been asked to provide an update to Mr Latham following Mr Palmer's various complaints. As is clear from the email chain, it starts with Mr Palmer's complaints to Councillors being raised by them with Mr Latham, and Mr Latham asking to be provided with a briefing by D3. The Amato Email updated D3's management and Mr Latham on the decision of the Community MARAC to send a joint letter to Mr Palmer. It also informed them that he had complained to Inspector Clifton directly. Ms Amato added the Farmer Email into the chain. She drew no attention to the statement complained of and made no comment about it in her own text.
On his return to work on 14 November 2019, Mr Latham replied to the Amato Email (“the Latham Email”). The focus of Mr Latham's reply email was a request for an update following a planned visit to Mr Palmer on 7 November 2019. However, he added that he was surprised “ to read in the email chain a reference in Colin Farmer's email to Mr Palmer's offending history. This seems inappropriate to me and would be disclosed if Mr Palmer were to make a Subject Access Request (and now that we are in receipt...
To continue reading
Request your trial