Jan Cambridge v Guillermo Makin
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE TUGENDHAT,Mr Justice Tugendhat |
| Judgment Date | 12 January 2011 |
| Neutral Citation | [2011] EWHC 12 (QB) |
| Docket Number | Case No: HQ09X00176 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division |
| Date | 12 January 2011 |
[2011] EWHC 12 (QB)
The Honourable Mr Justice Tugendhat
Case No: HQ09X00176
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
William Bennett (instructed by Kirwans) for the Claimant
Hugh Tomlinson QC and David Hirst (instructed by Collyer Bristow) for the Defendant
Hearing dates: 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 November
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.
Mr Justice Tugendhat:
Interpreters are essential to the public service. Their role in criminal justice is so important that it is specifically provided for in ECHR Article 6 as follows:
"3 Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the minimum rights:… (e) to have the free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the language used in court".
Interpreters have, therefore, not only to be competent linguists, they also have to have an appropriate level of understanding of the legal and administrative provisions in the context of which their services are required. The need for the services of interpreters can arise at very short notice, in particular in the criminal justice system. It can arise anywhere in the country, and the number of different languages which may be required to be interpreted is large.
The requirement that the assistance be free imposes the cost on the public purse. Interpreters have to be paid their fees and travelling expenses. Police Forces, and other public service organisations ("PSOs") responsible for the budgets for the criminal justice system have been looking for efficiency and costs savings for some years. These sometimes have adverse effects upon the earnings of interpreters.
It is against this background that this libel action is being contested between two highly qualified professional interpreters.
The Claimant is a freelance professional linguist. It is her conduct in 2005 in the exercise of her duties as a non-executive director of NRPSI Ltd that has been called into question. It was criticised in an e-mail dated 7 May 2007 ("the words complained of") published by the First Defendant ("the Defendant").
The words complained of read in full as follows:
"We have had an overwhelming response to our correspondence and need to clarify two extremely important issues:
) The private interests of NRPSI directors in selling our data to commercial intermediaries and the breach of the Data Protection Act 1998.
Two NRPSI Board Directors, Nicola Clegg and Janet Cambridge had interests in CINTRA Ltd, an agency which obtained our data contrary to the DPA 1998. Nicola Clegg was the CEO of CINTRA and Janet Cambridge worked as a trainer for CINTRA at the time our data were sold. There is evidence in the Coventry Partnership Project, the Lincolnshire Business Case Study, the East Midlands Delivery Plan and CINTRA's Training Manual from 2005 that CINTRA used its connections with the CIOL and NRPSI, through the two directors, to obtain a contract with five East Midlands constabularies and Norfolk. CINTRA has created a monopoly in East Midlands and Norfolk and slashed interpreters' fees by about 60%. We cannot compete against CINTRA. We can either work through them for their rates or not at all.
) Adequacy of the corrective measures taken by the NRPSI
The remedial action taken by NRPSI came too late because CINTRA already had the contract. Following the ICO's ruling, we asked John Hammond on many occasions to terminate the licence with CINTRA. He has refused to do so even though he admits in his letter to the MCILs that terminating the licence would frustrate the East Midlands contract.
We hold that John Hammond's explanation is incomplete, inaccurate and misleading. We can provide you with concrete documentary evidence which shows the link between NRPSI Board Directors, Nicola Clegg and Janet Cambridge with CINTRA should you request it. We ask you to consider the evidence before making an informed decision which will have an impact on our profession and livelihoods in the future. …"
This is an allegation or charge that the Claimant did abuse her position, sometimes referred to as a Chase Level 1 meaning ( Chase v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2003] EMLR 218). It is not allegation merely that there were reasonable grounds to believe that she did, nor any lower meaning. Following a determination I made in July 2010, and an appeal to the Court of Appeal, it was agreed between the parties that the meaning of the words complained of is:
"the Claimant abused her position as a director of NRPSI by acting on a conflict of interest, namely overseeing the sale of NRPSI members' data to a commercial agency, CINTRA, in which she was privately interested and from which she stood to and did personally benefit".
The meaning is derived more particularly from the following passages from the words complained of:
"The private interests of NRPSI directors in selling our data to commercial intermediaries …
Two NRPSI Board Directors, … and Janet Cambridge had interests in CINTRA Ltd, an agency which obtained our data … Janet Cambridge worked as a trainer for CINTRA at the time our data were sold. There is evidence in the Coventry Partnership Project, the Lincolnshire Business Case Study, the East Midlands Delivery Plan and CINTRA's Training Manual from 2005 that CINTRA used its connections with the CIOL and NRPSI, through the two directors, to obtain a contract with five East Midlands constabularies and Norfolk."
The action was started as long ago as 1 August 2008. The Defendant did not obtain legal representation until April 2010. His defences to the claim are now (1) that in the above meaning the words complained of are substantially true and (2) that in any event the words complained of were published on an occasion of qualified privilege recognised at common law (this defence being added by amendment in June 2010). There is a Reply alleging malice.
If these defences both fail, there are issues on damages. The Defendant's case is that, in the context of the events leading up to their publication, the words complained of had little impact on the Claimant's reputation.
When the matter was before me in July the trial was adjourned in order to give the Defendant an opportunity to apply to strike out the action as an abuse of the process of the court. But in the event he did not pursue his application.
There was originally a Second Defendant, the Defendant's trade union, GMB. This was because the words complained of were published by the Defendant on a template which included the name, address and other details of the Second Defendant at a time when he was conducting his campaign through that union. The Second Defendant settled the action with the Claimant, so that it now proceeds against the Defendant alone.
In May 2010 the Claimant amended her Particulars of Claim to abandon claims which she had been making on other publications. These were e-mails of 2 April 2007, and words published by the Defendant on the Second Defendant's website.
NRPSI and CINTRA
NRPSI Limited ("NRPSI") is a company limited by guarantee. It is a not for profit organisation wholly controlled by the Chartered Institute of Linguists ("CIOL"), formerly the Institute of Linguists ("IOL"). The aims of CIOL have at all material times been to promote the use and learning of modern languages, to improve the status of all professional linguists, to establish and maintain high standards of work, to serve the interests of all linguists, and to ensure professional standards amongst language practitioners through its Code of Conduct. It has about 6500 members worldwide.
A print out from NRPSI's website dated 11 October 2005 (which is in the form that it had been from about July that year) includes the following explanation of its role:
"NRPSI Ltd is as its title suggests a National Register of Public Service Interpreters for the use of Public Service Organisations and agencies that they work through to obtain professional, qualified and quality assured interpreters.
Like other professional registers, it comprises individuals who have satisfied selection criteria in terms of qualifications and experience, agreed to abide by a Code of Conduct … and subject to Disciplinary Procedures … where there are allegations that the code has been breached….
Public Service Organisations and agencies that they work through can obtain access to the National Register via a subscription service which is available through this website ….
The Register is administered by NRPSI Ltd, a wholly owned and non-profit making subsidiary of the Institute of Linguists. The Institute of Linguists is the UK's largest language professional body and was established in 1910" (emphasis added).
The Register maintained by NRPSI ("the Register") was established in 1994 with the support of the Home Office and the Nuffield Foundation. It was established in response to a recommendation made by the Royal Commission on Criminal Justice in 1993. This was to the effect that there should be national and local registers of qualified interpreters with the aim of "using only interpreters with proven competence and skills who are governed by nationally recognised code of conduct". NRPSI and the Register have no statutory backing.
From 1996 until 2000 IOL managed and administered it. In 2005 IOL became the CIOL. Since 2000 the Register has been administered and managed by NRPSI.
NRPSI is funded by subscriptions from those interpreters whose names are on the Register, and from fees charged to bodies to which it grants licences. Those...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Abkar Singh Rai v Jaskaran Singh Bholowasia and Another
...The defence of justification failed at trial, and there was no apology. Damages were assessed at £65,000. (2) Cambridge v Makin [2011 EWHC 12 (QB) was a case in which the claimant was accused in an email sent to about 1000 members of her own profession of abusing her position as a director ......
-
Abkar Singh Rai v Jaskaran Singh Bholowasia and Another
...The defence of justification failed at trial, and there was no apology. Damages were assessed at £65,000. (2) Cambridge v Makin [ 2011 EWHC 12 (QB) was a case in which the claimant was accused in an email sent to about 1000 members of her own profession of abusing her position as a directo......
-
Jan Cambridge v Guillermo Makin
...Civ 85 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION) ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION Mr Justice Tugendhat [2011] EWHC 12 (QB) Royal Courts of Justice Strand, London, WC2A 2LL Lord Justice Hughes Lady Justice Black and Lord Justice Tomlinson Case No: A2/2011/0285 Be......
-
Frank Kofi Otuo v Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Britain
...of the individuals who he accuses of malice in the present case, Mr Otuo referred me to what Tugendhat J said in Cambridge v Makin [2011] EWHC 12 (QB) at [211]: “The most important tests of credibility are the consistency of a witness's evidence with what can be shown to have occurred, and......