Karl Samuel Oyston v Stephen Reed
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Justice Langstaff,The Honourable Mr Justice Langstaff |
| Judgment Date | 09 May 2016 |
| Neutral Citation | [2016] EWHC 1067 (QB) |
| Docket Number | Case No: B90MA277 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division |
| Date | 09 May 2016 |
[2016] EWHC 1067 (QB)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
Manchester District Registry
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Mr Justice Langstaff
Case No: B90MA277
Mr T. E. Shannon (instructed by Graham Woodward) for the Claimant
in Person for the Defendant
Hearing date: 11 March 2016
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 brings an action for libel against the Defendant. The Claimant is the Chairman of Blackpool Football Club Ltd ("Blackpool"). The Defendant is a fan of Blackpool. Together with a number of other fans, he has been concerned with the way in which the Club has been managed since the Claimant's father was involved in its purchase.
The Claimant told me, and I accept, that he – and his wife, Victoria – have been the subject of on-line abuse, some of which has come from the group of fans of which the Defendant is part, which has caused both him and his family concern and distress. He would like it to stop.
The Defendant posted material relating to the Claimant on-line on 25 th June 2015 (or thereabouts). He did so on a website entitled "BackHenryStreet", a website used by followers of Blackpool Football Club.
The words, as they appeared in that publication, were these:
"A matter of far graver concern is that how can a representative of a Defendant by a The High Court continue to assist when complying to court orders then faced such venomous and abusive hostility and criminal activity? The facts of the incident have since been reported to the court as Oystons are in deliberate and aggravated contempt of court. This is a serious offence in itself and it is punishable by a prison sentence of up to two years. Oyston's scurrilous behaviour is destined to bully with the threat of violence to prevent myself from providing David and Jez from using my best endeavours in determining justice.
I am prepared to swear on Oath that the facts in my draft witness statement are truthful. Raggy has also signed to say he believes the events to be the truth. I guess time will tell and no amount of threats to the police regarding civil action from Karl Oyston should ever alter, sway of effect the course of justice or protect the Claimants from brandishing a shot gun to intimidate the defence.
The situation is aggravated because after the gun toting in Waddington by Karl Oyston I formally complained to the Chief Super and never received the curtesy of a reply. If the police had taken my complaint seriously regarding Oyston and his guns or at all, then it is reasonable to assume that the altercation on Thursday may never have occurred.
Karl Oyston I put it to you that your behaviour was a deliberate and calculated act to pervert the course of justice whereas your father is just a pervert."
It was not disputed before me that the posting referred to the Claimant.
The Claimant complains that:
(i) the words "a matter for grave concern… then faced such venomous and abusive facility and criminal activity?" meant and were understood to mean that the Claimant had subjected the Defendant Stephen Reed to venomous and abusive hostility and had been guilty of criminal activity toward him;
(ii) the words "Oystons are in deliberate and aggravated contempt of court" meant and were understood to mean that the Claimant had committed a deliberate and aggravated contempt of court;
(iii) the words "this is a serious offence in itself and is punishable by prison sentence of up to two years" meant and were understood to mean that the Claimant had committed a criminal offence which was punishable by prison sentence of up to two years and was serious;
(iv) the words "Oyston's scurrilous behaviour is destined to bully with the threat of violence to prevent myself from providing David and Jez using my best endeavours in determining justice" meant and were understood to mean that the Claimant had engaged in scurrilous behaviour toward the Defendant, had bullied him, threatened him with violence, and did so in order to prevent him from providing other persons (David (Ragozzino) and Jez (Jeremy Smith) with his best efforts to assist them in litigation (their defence of a libel action brought against David Ragozzino by Karl Oyston);
(v) the words "I am prepared to swear that the facts in my draft witness statement are truthful. Raggy has also signed to say he believes the events to be true" meant and were understood to mean that the Defendant had made a formal witness statement setting out facts which amounted to, or described, threatening and intimidating actions by the Claimant toward the Defendant, accompanied by the handling of a firearm in a threatening way. They also implied that David Ragozzino had witnessed those events or had some objective means of knowing that the events as the Defendant described them had indeed happened as he said they had;
(vi) The words "no amount of threats to the police… should ever… protect the Claimants from brandishing a shot gun to intimidate the Defendants" meant and were understood to mean that the Claimant had brandished a shot gun in order to intimidate the Defendant;
(vii) the words "…after the gun toting in Waddington by Karl Oyston I formally complained to the Chief Super…" meant and were understood to mean that the Claimant had been guilty of "gun toting" (namely handling or brandishing a gun in an indiscriminate uncontrolled or improper manner) such as reasonably to justify a formal complaint by the Defendant to a Police Chief Superintendant;
(viii) the words "I put it to you that your behaviour was deliberate and calculated to pervert the course of justice" meant and were understood to mean that the Claimant's actions were calculated to pervert the course of justice, involving threatening or intimidating the Defendant with a gun.
These meanings have not seriously been disputed before me.
It was claimed that the reference to "my draft witness statement" referred to an account given by the Defendant to David Ragozzino which had been published on a website "fansonline.net" (with the URL of "http://www. fansonline.net/blackpool") about 25 th June 2015. It was asserted that the website was read by many persons, amongst them followers of Blackpool Football Club and readers of the BackHenryStreet website. Under the heading "the Afro Man's account" ("Afro Man" being a reference to the Defendant, Stephen Reed) was the account, in these words:
"I went to Bloomfield Road (BFC Hotel) to hand in the defence documents for Jeremy Smith as he has been issued papers by the Oystons claiming defamation of character. I went to the Reception and handed the defence to a blond haired lady and requested she gave it to Graeme Woodward (Oyston's solicitor). I then left and on exiting the building I saw an old friend that was doing some work for BFC. I stood talking to him close to the entrance of the BFC Hotel when a dark-bronze coloured 4X4 vehicle came into the car park. It stopped as it couldn't get into the space it wanted due to a bollard being in place. Out stepped Karl Oyston and immediately started to rant at me shouting "What the fukc are you doing here, fukc off now!!!" he shouted other things that I can't recall word for word exactly, but he was visibly foaming at the mouth and stuttering as his anger grew. I said back to him, "Karl, stop shouting you are going to lose your voice you son of a rapist". He then jumped back in his car having moved the bollard, parked up, then got out with his shot gun in hand. He told me basically get off his fukcing land now. I honestly thought he was going to shoot at me, so I immediately started to cross the road and get to my car. I left and went straight to Jeremy Smith's letting him know I don't think I can carry on this if it's going to result in me being shot!!! I was there simply handing in legal papers in a professional manner and was set about and made to fear for my safety, or even my life, how can that be right?" (The mis-spelling is in the original)
The Claimant complains that those words meant and were understood to mean that the Claimant became enraged and entered into a foul mouthed rant at the Defendant in a public place; that he had held a gun in such a manner as reasonably to make the Defendant believe that he the Claimant was about to shoot at him, and by reference to "set about and made to fear for my safety, or even my life" that the Claimant had assaulted the Defendant and had put him in fear for his safety or even his life, bringing this about by his behaviour and in particular the manner in which he handled a firearm close to the Defendant.
Proceedings for these alleged libels were issued on 8 th July 2015. No acknowledgment of service was filed. Judgment for the Claimant was entered in default by District Judge Moss by order dated 13 th August 2015. No application has been made to set that judgment aside. Liability is therefore made out.
The proceedings before me, therefore, were to determine what should be awarded to the Claimant by way of damages, and whether the Court should grant the order he sought restraining the Defendant from the publication of the same or similar libels.
The Defendant made a defence statement dated 20 th January 2016. In that he explained that there had been an armed raid at his home in consequence of which he suffered from PTSD. The implication of this was that it might explain his reactions to events where he may have seemed unduly to take alarm. He described the legal action as "wholly vexatious" (although judgment had been entered, and he had taken no steps to set it...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rached Ghannouchi v Middle East Online Ltd
...a detailed breakdown of the award. These factors were rehearsed in the above way by Langstaff J in Karl Samuel Oyston v Stephen Reed [2016] EWHC 1067 (QB) (at paragraph 30) with which I agree. As Langstaff J there further observed, the damages must not be out of proportion to those awarded......
-
Stephen Gooderson v Mohammad Ismail Ali Qureshi
...in relation to the withheld deposit. 125 Dr Wilkinson cited the awards made in John v MGN Ltd [1997] QB 586 and in Oyston v Reed [2016] EWHC 1067 (QB) as providing some value as comparators, albeit he accepted that they did not provide an exact 126 Having carefully considered all the rele......
-
Graham Woodward v Andrew Grice
...the lack of necessity for a detailed breakdown of the award. These factors were rehearsed in the above way by Langstaff J in Karl Samuel Oyston v Stephen Reed [2016] EWHC 1067 (QB) (at paragraph 30) with which I agree. As Langstaff J there further observed, the damages must not be out of pr......