Mark v Associated Newspapers Ltd
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Lord Justice Simon Brown,Lord Justice Mummery,Lord Justice Dyson |
| Judgment Date | 30 May 2002 |
| Neutral Citation | [2002] EWCA Civ 772 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Docket Number | Case No: QBENI/2001/2847 |
| Date | 30 May 2002 |
[2002] EWCA Civ 772
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
(QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION)
(HHJ Previte QC)
Lord Justice Simon Brown
Lord Justice Mummery and
Lord Justice Dyson
Case No: QBENI/2001/2847
David Price Esq, Solicitor Advocate & Rupert Butler Esq
(of Messrs David Price) for the Appellant
Mark Warby Esq, QC
(instructed by Messrs Reynolds Porter Chamberlain) for the Respondent
The appellant, Miss Mark, was employed by Mr and Mrs Blair as their children's nanny from 1994 to 1998. When she left she wrote a book about it. The Mail on Sunday ("MoS") obtained a copy of the book and on 3/4 March 2000 (a Friday and Saturday) spoke to the appellant about it. They then published in that night's issue of MoS an article about the matter. At 2.00am that Sunday morning (5 March 2000) the Blairs obtained a High Court injunction forbidding further publication of the article. Some hours later both MoS and the appellant made statements. The following day, Monday 6 March 2000, the Daily Mail—MoS's sister paper, also published by the respondents, Associated Newspapers Limited—published their own article about these events. It is that article which is sued upon in these proceedings. That it was defamatory of the appellant is not in dispute. What is in dispute, however, is the precise defamatory meanings it is capable of bearing.
On 7 December 2001 Judge Previte QC, sitting as a Deputy Judge of the Queen's Bench Division, struck out the meanings pleaded in the appellant's Amended Particulars of Claim. It is against that order that the appellant, with permission given by myself on the papers on 11 February 2002, now appeals to this court.
With that brief introduction let me at once set out the words complained of. On page 2 of the Daily Mail for Monday 6 May 2000, under the headline "Blairs step up legal battle over book by their former nanny" and alongside a photograph of the appellant separately entitled "Miss Mark, as she agreed to pose for a Mail on Sunday photographer", three different versions of the article were published in various editions. The differences were comparatively minor, however, and for the purposes of the appeal it has been agreed simply to refer to the version which now follows (with paragraph numbers added for convenience):
"1. Tony and Cherie Blair will today step up their legal battle to prevent the publication of a book about their family written by a former Downing Street nanny.
2. The Prime Minister said yesterday he would do 'whatever it takes' to protect the privacy of his children.
3. He was speaking after his wife obtained a High Court injunction at 2am on Sunday halting publication of material from the book in the Mail on Sunday. The newspaper was denied the chance to put its case at the hearing.
4. The newspaper stressed yesterday that great care had been taken to 'ensure that nothing in our story intruded into the privacy of the Blairs' children or family life.'
5. It also accused the Prime Minister's Press Secretary, Alastair Campbell of 'astonishing hypocrisy' and said: 'If Mr Blair has a problem, it is with his former nanny.'
6. The book, which runs to 180,000 words, was written by Ros Mark, 30, nanny to the Blair children from 1994 to 1998.
7. In a robust statement, the Mail on Sunday said it would contest the injunction in the High Court today and alleged that Miss Mark had 'misrepresented her position'.
8. 'She has written a 451-page book about her life with the Blairs which has been offered to a number of publishers,' the paper said.
9. 'Over 24 hours on Friday and Saturday we spoke to Ros Mark several times. She talked to us openly, confirmed she was seeking a publisher for her book and discussed its contents.
10. She insisted that confidentiality would not be a problem. She was fully aware we were writing a story, posed for pictures and gave us two photographs of her with the Blairs.
11. At 5.45pm on Saturday we spoke to Alastair Campbell and told him what we had learned. He said he had discussed the matter with Ros Mark. He insisted that Downing Street were relaxed about what she was doing and that the Blairs had total faith in her.
12. Following this, we spoke again to Ros Mark and she offered us an option on serialisation of her book.
13. At 11.15pm, five and a half hours later, we were told by Alastair Campbell that he was seeking an injunction on behalf of the Blairs.
14. We told the Blairs' lawyers that we wanted to be represented at any hearing and arrangements were made for this to take place.
15. At 1.58am, when 1.5 million copies of our newspaper had already been printed and distributed, we were told that an injunction had been granted halting printing of our newspaper. Our lawyers were not even informed that a hearing was taking place. Only after this did the judge agree to speak to our lawyers.'
16. The decision to seek the injunction was taken after a four-way conference phone call late on Saturday between Mr Blair in his Sedgefield constituency, Mrs Blair in Downing Street, Mr Campbell in his North London home, and Cabinet Office Minister Lord Falconer in his Islington home.
17. Yesterday morning Miss Mark vehemently denied authorising publication of material from the book. Her former literary agent Jonathan Harris also denied playing any part. She said: 'I am absolutely devastated that something I wanted to be nice about the Blairs and my time with them has been presented in the way it has, and has caused them upset.'
18. The Blairs claim publication breaches a confidentiality agreement signed by Miss Mark when she went to work in Downing Street after the 1997 general election. Mrs Blair was a co-signatory to the agreement.
19. Mr Blair talked to Miss Mark yesterday and later defended her saying she was a 'good person who will not have intended any harm'.
20. But in a personal statement issued from Downing Street, he said: 'As Prime Minister I obviously accept that there's a great deal of media interest in me and my family. But I'm not just the Prime Minister, but also a father and husband and Cherie and I are absolutely determined, no matter how unusual our own lives may be because of the nature of my job, that our children have as normal an upbringing as possible.
21. We do not seek injunctions lightly and we will do whatever it takes to protect the legitimate privacy of our children from unwarranted intrusion in their lives.'
22. A further statement from Downing Street last night said Miss Mark had indicated she would not proceed with publication of the book.
23. In its first statement the Mail on Sunday, sister paper of the Daily Mail, hit out at the process it said had denied it the opportunity to put its case.
24. 'The process used is called an ex-parte injunction, one of the most draconian instruments in English law,' the statement said.
25. 'The projected publication of Miss Mark's book is a matter of significant political and public interest. We believe that anyone who cares about press freedom should be concerned about the way ex-parte injunctions are increasingly used to suppress stories in the media.'
26. In its second statement it said: 'Alastair Campbell's press briefing on behalf of the Prime Minister exhibits astonishing hypocrisy.
27. Having obtained an unprecedented 2am injunction (to which the Mail on Sunday was not given the chance to put its case) on the grounds of breach of confidence, he is now implying that the newspaper is guilty of invasion of privacy.
28. It is true, the Mail on Sunday understands, that Ros Mark's 180,000 word manuscript exposes details of the Blair children's private lives on almost every page.
29. The newspaper, on the other hand is well aware of the Press Complaints Commission's rules on the privacy of children and its article scrupulously avoided any reference which might breach that code.
30. If Mr Blair has a problem, it is with his former nanny. It was she who composed this 451-page manuscript, she who placed it with an agent to sell to publishers, and she who was prepared to break every confidence of her former employers.
31 This is what the Mail on Sunday article in essence was about, and why it was in the public interest. But instead of entering into sensible debate, first Mr Campbell tried, in draconian manner, to suppress our story. Now he is cynically attempting to misrepresent it.'"
Two adjacent boxes of text accompanied the main text as follows:
"What the Prime Minister said:
'As Prime Minister I obviously accept that there's a great deal of media interest in me and my family. But I'm not just the Prime Minister, but also a father and husband and Cherie and I are absolutely determined, no matter how unusual our own lives may be because of the nature of my job, that our children have as normal an upbringing as possible. We do not seek injunctions lightly and we will do whatever it takes to protect the legitimate privacy of our children from unwarranted intrusion in their lives.'
What the Mail on Sunday said:
'Alastair Campbell's press briefing on behalf of the Prime Minister exhibits astonishing hypocrisy. He is now implying that the Mail on Sunday is guilty of invasion of privacy. It is true that Ros Mark's manuscript exposes details of the Blair children's private lives on almost every page. But our article scrupulously avoided any reference which might breach that code. If Mr Blair has a problem, it is with his former nanny. She composed this manuscript, placed it with an agent and was prepared to break every...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Priya Hiranandani-Vandrevala v Times Newspapers Ltd
...of the more general proposition that the publication complained of must be considered as a whole. As Simon Brown LJ said in Mark v Associated Newspapers Ltd [2002] EMLR 839 at [37], '[T]he correct approach is not in doubt. If the defamatory sting of an article is wholly removed by surroundi......
-
Curistan v Times Newspapers Ltd
...rule should not be applied in the circumstances of the present case is that none of the reasons for that rule, as spelled out in Mark v Associated Newspapers [2002] EMLR 839, applies or should apply. The overall submission of the defendant is that, if the repetition rule is disapplied, as i......
-
Curistan v Times Newspapers Ltd
...modification to an established rule for which Mr Moloney contends. It seems to me that the reasons given by Simon Browne LJ in Mark v Associated Newspapers Ltd [2002] EMLR 839 at [27]-[35] for the existence of the repetition rule are just as valid in the circumstances of the present case as......
-
Roberts v Gable
...defence is still not clearly defined or confined by Al Fagih. Other cases of reportage 41 Reportage is next mentioned in Mark v Associated Newspapers Ltd [2002] E.M.L.R. 38. There the Daily Mail repeated assertions in the Mail on Sunday that Miss Mark, the Prime Minister's former nanny, had......