"kc" v Mgn Ltd
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Justice Bean |
| Judgment Date | 05 March 2012 |
| Neutral Citation | [2012] EWHC 756 (QB) |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division |
| Docket Number | Case No: HQ11D02225 |
| Date | 05 March 2012 |
[2012] EWHC 483 (QB)
Mr Justice Bean
Case No: HQ11D02225
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
James Dingemans QC and Julien Foster (instructed by YVA Solicitors) for the Claimant
Heather Rogers QC (instructed by Rhiannon James, MGN Legal Department) for the Defendant
Hearing date: 27 February 2012
Peter Connelly was born on 1 st March 2006. Four months later his parents separated and his mother Tracey began a relationship with a man called Steven Barker. Peter and his siblings then lived with their mother. On 3 rd August 2007 Peter was found unconscious in his cot, and later died. He had suffered very serious injuries including a fractured spine and eight fractured ribs and had been appallingly neglected. In 2008 Tracey Connelly, Steven Barker and Barker's brother Jason Owen were convicted at the Central Criminal Court on a charge of causing or permitting the death of a child and sentenced by His Honour Judge Kramer QC to substantial terms of imprisonment. During the trial Peter's first name and surname were not made public. He was referred to simply as "Baby P".
The Claimant in this case is Peter's father. It is important to emphasise that he played no part whatever in the neglect and death of his son. It is also important to emphasise that he was and remains a man of entirely good character.
On Sunday 19 September 2010 The People published a 24 page supplement entitled "Evil Women". A page and a half focussed on Tracey Connelly. There were pictures of her, of Barker and Owen, and of baby Peter himself. The article also included the following:—
"At just 16 she met the father of Peter – 17 years her senior – and the two were married in Haringey Civic Centre. Her new husband was a sex offender."
Later in the article was the following paragraph:—
"Peter's real father had also reappeared and had begun making frequent visits – something that would have set off alarm bells at Social Services as he had been convicted in the 1970s in Leicester for raping a 14 year old girl."
It was true that the Claimant was 17 years older than Tracey Connelly. It was also true that they had been married in Haringey Civic Centre. But it was not true that the Claimant was a sex offender, nor that he had been convicted of the rape of a 14 year old girl.
The Claimant learned of the article in a telephone call from his uncle. Other friends rang him to ask whether the story was true. He believed "that everyone who has read the story will believe it to be true". He was, as he says in his witness statements, "shocked and upset beyond words". No attempt had been made to contact him to discover whether the statements were true or false and no explanation has to this day been given as to why that was not done.
The publication placed additional strain on the Claimant for this reason. He has other children. They lived with Tracey Connelly in 2007. Peter was first injured in December 2006: the Claimant offered to look after him but was not given the opportunity. Tracey Connelly had made false accusations of violence against him to Social Services. She also placed considerable obstacles in the way of his having proper contact with his children. Following a period in foster care the children were the subject of an interim care order in the Claimant's favour in January 2009. At the time of the article in The People proceedings were still on foot in the Family Division to determine whether that placement should be permanent. The Claimant feared that the widely publicised allegation that he was a sex offender meant that his children might be taken from him. Happily they were not, and I was told that a permanent order in favour of the Claimant was made in March 2011.
On 23 rd September 2010, four days after the article was published, YVA, solicitors for the Claimant, wrote a letter of complaint which was received by MGN on 27 th September. The Defendants replied three days later saying that they were looking into the complaint and confirming that no further information regarding the Claimant would be published by The People pending its resolution. On 7 th October 2010 Rhiannon James, a solicitor at MGN, telephoned the Claimant's solicitors and also wrote them a letter "without prejudice save as to costs".
There then followed a pause of just over a month during which the Claimant and his solicitors (who were also acting for him in the care proceedings) were preoccupied with those proceedings and also the possibility of a resumed inquest on Peter. On 10 th November 2010 YVA sent a formal letter of claim seeking publication of an apology; an undertaking not to repeat the allegations; damages for injury to reputation, embarrassment and distress; a joint statement in open court; and costs. The letter enclosed a draft apology including this sentence "We confirm that Baby P's father is not a sex offender and he has not been convicted of any sex offence, or indeed any offences".
Marcus Partington of MGN replied on 12 th November 2010. He apologised on behalf of The People and MGN Limited for their mistake in publishing what they did about the Claimant. He stated that they were "of course" prepared to publish an apology which could appear on Sunday 14 th November if the wording could be agreed in time, though in the newspaper itself rather than the supplement which had been a "one off". He confirmed MGN's willingness to pay "a proper and suitable sum" by way of damages and asked how much the Claimant was seeking. He said that in his view it was not reasonable or proportionate for there to be a direct statement in open court. He added:—
"I believe that it is implicit from this letter that we are, in effect, making an offer of amends pursuant to section 2 of the Defamation Act 1996 but I mention that we are so that there is no ambiguity about the position."
Mr Partington enclosed a suggested revision of the apology which had been drafted by YVA. This included the sentence "We confirm that that allegation was false and that Baby P's father has not been convicted of any sex offence." This wording was clumsy and unfortunate, since it conveyed the imputation that the Claimant had been convicted of something else. When this was pointed out MGN agreed to the wording "has not been convicted of any offence". A number of other detailed drafting points were exchanged over the next few days.
On Friday 19 th November Mr Partington wrote with the wording which he intended to suggest to the editor of The People for publication. It was duly published in the newspaper on Sunday 21 st November 2010. After referring to the allegations it read "We confirm that the allegations are without foundation and that Baby P's father has never been convicted of any criminal offences. We apologise to Baby P's father for making this error and for the very considerable distress and embarrassment our article caused him".
At the same time as sending the final text of the apology on 19 th November 2010 Mr Partington had repeated MGN's offer to make amends pursuant to Section 2 of the 1996 Act. On 7 th December 2010 YVA accepted MGN's offer to make amends. But the parties were unable to reach agreement on the level of damages. An offer and counter-offer were made in open correspondence; the amounts have quite rightly been redacted in the bundle before me. A meeting between lawyers on both sides took place on 17 th March 2011 but agreement was not reached. Proceedings were issued on 16 th June 2011.
The Claimant has filed two witness statements. He was not asked to attend court for cross-examination and I therefore take what he says to be undisputed. Mr Partington filed a witness statement for the Defendants. He had been due to attend for cross-examination at the hearing on Monday 27 th February 2012 but became ill over the weekend of 25 th/26th. Ms Heather Rogers QC for MGN applied for his witness statement to be admitted as hearsay; Mr James Dingemans QC for the Claimant did not oppose this and I ordered accordingly. Mr Dingemans understandably did not seek an adjournment to cross-examine Mr Partington.
One reference in Mr Partington's witness statement has especially upset the Claimant: Mr Partington says that the error was to attribute the rape conviction to Peter Connelly's father, whereas it should have been his grandfather. The Claimant took this as a slur on his father, whereas it is common ground, and even before Mr Partington made his witness statement was already in evidence, that the 1970s sex offender was in fact Tracey Connelly's father. Mr Dingemans did not suggest that the ambiguity was deliberate, but in a sensitive case it was, like the first draft of the apology, somewhat unfortunate.
I should add a word about anonymity. In the Family Division proceedings Coleridge J made an order prohibiting publication of the Claimant's name or address, or any photograph of him, and made detailed orders prohibiting the publication of any information which would tend to identify his children. There is a proviso to that order relating to proceedings in open court unless the court sitting in public (as I have done) itself makes an order restricting publication. At the outset of the hearing before me I made an order prohibiting the publication of specified information emerging during the hearing.. The purpose both of Coleridge J's order and of my order is to protect not the Claimant but his children. Ms Rogers did not oppose my making such an order.
The two-stage assessment of compensation
It was common ground between counsel that in a case where an offer to make amends has been made and accepted, but the quantum of damages remains in issue, the judge should follow a two-stage process identified in two judgments...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Anna Turley v Unite the Union
...proportionate. 174 Ms Wilson has relied upon awards made in three earlies cases as providing a general guide: i) Cairns v Modi [2012] EWHC 756 (QB) (upheld on appeal): £75,000 general damages plus £15,000 aggravated damages in respect of tweet where the extent of original publication was a......
-
Cairns v Modi
...(CIVIL DIVISION) ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE BEAN [2012] EWHC 483 (QB) & [2012] EWHC 756 (QB) Royal Courts of Justice Strand, London, WC2A 2LL (Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of WordWave International Limited A Merrill Co......
-
Martin Gilham v MGN Ltd
...and damages were awarded primarily for the impact on feelings and distress. £40,000 was awarded (£58,000 today). e. Cairns v Modi [2012] EWHC 756 (QB) involved a tweet with an immediate audience of 65 people republished to an estimated 1,000 additional readers. The allegation of corruption......
-
Shobna Gulati and Others v MGN Ltd
...in the idea of a scale, let alone the Vento scales, becomes inappropriate. 191 The same was held of libel actions in Cairns v Modi [2012] EWHC 756 (QB). In that case Vento was relied on by the defendant as requiring what the court described as a more analytical approach in libel cases, req......
-
Business Litigation Report -- June 2012
...that the facts would need to disclose a clear course of dealing to this effect ([20]). Libellous Tweets on Twitter: In Cairns v Modi [2012] EWHC 756 (QB), the High Court considered a libel action by Chris Cairns, a former captain of the New Zealand cricket team, against Lalit Modi, the form......
-
Hitting cricket match fixing for 6
...than, for example, overall match results: see the Policy at page 12. 5Stuff article 31.5.14 6Chris Lance Cairns v Lalit Modi [2012] EWHC 756 (QB) (26 March 2012), and Chris Lance Cairns v Lalit Modi [2012] EWCA Civ 1382 (31 October 2012). 7Radio New Zealand article, 15.2.15 8Match-Fixing : ......
-
June 2012: London Litigation Update
...that the facts would need to disclose a clear course of dealing to this effect ([20]). Libellous Tweets on Twitter: In Cairns v Modi [2012] EWHC 756 (QB), the High Court considered a libel action by Chris Cairns, a former captain of the New Zealand cricket team, against Lalit Modi, the form......
-
Offensive Tweeting: Criminal or Just Crass? 'Freedom Only to Speak Inoffensively is not Worth Having
...Law 5-10. 5 9Regina v Blackshaw and Others [2011] E.W.C.A Crim 2312, Keith-Smith v Williams [2006] E.W.H.C 860 (QB), Cairns v Modi [2012] E.W.H.C 756 (QB) etc 86 S.S.L.R ‘Offensive Tw eeting: Crim inal or Just Crass? Vol.4 Article 10 : Fre e do m Of Expre s s io n Introduction The ECHR was ......