Paul Blackledge v Person(s) unknown Being the Authors, Editors and Publishers of the Website https//metooucu.blogspot.com
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Justice Saini |
| Judgment Date | 15 July 2021 |
| Neutral Citation | [2021] EWHC 1994 (QB) |
| Docket Number | Case No: QB-2021-000325 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division |
[2021] EWHC 1994 (QB)
THE HONOURABLE Mr Justice Saini
Case No: QB-2021-000325
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
MEDIA AND COMMUNICATIONS LIST
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Ben Hamer (instructed by Brett Wilson LLP) for the Claimant
The Defendant did not attend and was not represented
Hearing dates: 13 July 2021
Approved Judgment
THE HONOURABLE Mr Justice Saini
This judgment is in 6 parts as follows:
| I. Overview: | paras. [1–7] |
| II. The Factual Background: | paras. [8–22] |
| III. Procedural History: | paras. [23–29] |
| IV. Quantum: | paras. [30–54] |
| V. Injunction: | paras. [55–56] |
| VI. S.13 of the Defamation Act 2013: | paras. [57–62]. |
I. Overview
The Claimant, Paul Blackledge, is a senior and respected academic in the field of politics and ethics. He is the victim of a campaign of online abuse in the form a number of blog posts (in the form of articles) that have been posted on a Website by an unidentified Defendant. These articles make false and seriously defamatory allegations of sexual misconduct by the Claimant.
The Defendant has used the anonymity of the internet and social media to hide. The facts of this case are a striking example of how the internet and social media can be used to abuse and damage innocent individuals with apparent impunity. The particular allegations made in this case are of sexual misconduct by the Claimant of the most grave kind against a number of women (described by the author as “ survivors”). The nameless blogger has cynically used the # MeToo debate as part of their strategy. The Claimant is said to be a sexual predator who is guilty of a series of serious sexual assaults, including rape, sustained bullying and intimidation. There has been widespread dissemination of this material. There can be little doubt that the allegations have caused the Claimant and his family substantial personal distress and have had an adverse impact upon his professional standing in the academic community.
This judgment is an assessment of damages and ancillary relief in the Claimant's claims in libel, harassment and for breach of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) arising out of these posts. On 18 February 2021, the Claimant obtained judgment in default of acknowledgment of service and the Master directed by order dated 7 May 2021 that remedies were to be assessed at a later hearing and gave directions. The Master also gave the Claimant permission pursuant to CPR r.6.16 to serve the orders, notice of hearing, witness statement, application notice or other court document in these proceedings via the email address metooucu@protonmail.com. That has been done.
As described in more detail below, the Defendant's identity remains unknown. The Defendant has not responded to these proceedings and did not attend the hearing before me. On my invitation, I was addressed at the start of the hearing by Counsel for the Claimant on whether I should proceed with this hearing in absence of the Defendant under CPR 39.3(1). I was satisfied that I should do so, having had regard the helpful guidance in Sloutsker v Romanova [2015] EWHC 2053 (QB) at [26] and Pirtek (UK) Limited v Robert Jackson [2017] EWHC 2834 (QB) at [20].
I came to this decision having concluded that the Defendant's right to freedom of expression is in issue and section 12 of the Human Rights Act 1998 applies. The Claimant seeks final injunctive relief and an order against Google LLC under section 13 of the Defamation Act 2013 requiring it, as a third party host, to remove the website which hosts the relevant blog. In my judgment, the Claimant has, within the constraints posed by the particular facts of anonymous internet publication of defamatory matter, taken all practical steps possible to notify the Defendant of both the originating process and this hearing. I will set out the procedural history which led me to this conclusion in more detail below in Section III.
The specific matters before me are: (i) the assessment of damages for libel and harassment; (ii) the injunction application; and (iii) the s.13 application. Since the damages claimed under data protection are accepted to be parasitic on the libel and harassment claim and wholly overlap with those claims (and in the interests of proportionality) the Claimant did not pursue compensation in relation to that part of the claim. I should record that I gave the Claimant permission at the start of the hearing under CPR r 17.1(2)(b), to amend the Claim Form to increase the upper limit of the amount claimed in the proceedings.
I will begin with an outline of the facts.
II. The Factual Background
I have based this summary on the pleadings and witness statement of Mr Blackledge, the Claimant (hereafter referred to as “C”), which has not been contradicted.
As I stated above, C is an academic. C does not know the identity of the Defendant (“D”).
Between 1999 and 2017 C worked at Leeds Metropolitan University (which changed its name to Leeds Beckett University in 2014) teaching Politics. C has subsequently held positions in London South Bank University, Northumbria University and recently Shanxi University, China.
Between 1999 and 2017 C was a member of the University and College Union (“UCU”). The UCU represents employees of universities and colleges across the UK. While at UCU, C was aligned with what in the evidence before me is described as the ‘UCU Left’, one of the two major factions within the UCU, and was a member of the SWP until he left voluntarily in August 2015.
The website at the URL https://MeTooUCU.blogspot.com (“the Website”) is on BlogSpot (a free to use blogging platform hosted by Google LLC). There are three blog posts that have been posted on the Website by D which make seriously defamatory allegations about C:
(a) the First Article “ An account of sexual assault in the UCU” (published on 8 February 2020);
(b) the Second Article “ The Blackledge Web” (published on 15 February 2020);
(c) the Third Article “ New light on MeTooUCU, involving evidence from within the SWP” (published on 28 April 2020).
At the bottom of each article contact details are given in the form of an email address: MeTooUCU@protonmail.com. As is well known, ProtonMail is an end-to-end encrypted email service based in Switzerland.
The Articles make gravely defamatory allegations to the effect that C is guilty of rape and sexual assaults, is a sexual predator and covered up his crimes and humiliated survivors of his abuse.
Although it would be for D to establish truth and D has not participated, I am satisfied on the evidence that C has never committed any form of sexual harassment, sexual assault, or rape. I also accept that he was devastated by these false allegations and finds the very idea of sexual violence abhorrent.
C first heard of the Website when he received a call from Geoff Brown, a former regional officer in the UCU who told C he had been emailed a link to a blog post at the Website and that they alleged C was a rapist and had sexually assaulted women. Around the same time, C found the newly created anonymous Twitter account with the handle @MeTooUCU (“the Twitter Account”). It had “tweeted out” a link to the blog 27 times, each one tagging a different Twitter account stating, “ Please read this account of sexual assault in the University and College Union UCU [Content warning] https://metooucu.blogspot.com”.
On 15 February 2020, C conducted a Google search of his name and found the Second Article. C saw the Twitter Account tweeted a link to the Second Article on the same day stating, “ Many of those who helped enable and defend a sexual predator remain in key elected positions in University and College Union (UCU) #MeToo #MeTooUCU”.
On 28 April 2020, C searched for his name on Google and found the third article. C saw the Twitter Account tweeted a link to the Third Article again, tagging multiple Twitter accounts in separate messages.
C was invited to present on a topic to an academic conference on 24 July 2020 via Zoom: the 13 th Annual Conference of the International Society for MacIntyrean Enquiry. C had been involved since the inception of the ISME in 2008. It is organised by the ISME Central Committee comprised of six academics from around the world, including Dr Kelvin Knight (London Metropolitan University) and Dr Jeffrey Nicholas (University of Notre Dame) both of whom C knew personally. On 18 July 2020 C received a call from Dr Nicholas who told C that all members of the ISME Central Committee had received an anonymous email on 10 July 2020 that directed them to the First Article and urged them to exclude C from the ISME. Dr Nicholas also told C that on 16 July 2020 all members of the ISME Central Committee had received an email from D's Email Address. The email included a hyperlink to the Website and stated C had a sexual history of “ sexual assault, harassment and predation” and that he had been expelled from UCU after an investigation into him.
On 29 July 2020 C again conducted a Google search of his name and saw a further Tweet by the Twitter account ‘MeTooUCU’ which stated:-
“It's troubling to see Paul Blackledge continue to be invited to academic events. He spoke last week at the International Society for MacIntyrean Enquiry (ISME) online conference. The organisers were informed but they failed to respond https://macintyreanenquiry.org/isme-online #MeToo #MeTooUCU”
On 3 November 2020, C spoke with Dr Nicholas and C was informed that on 7 August 2020 Dr Nicholas had received a further email from the same person calling themselves ‘Concerned Member’. The email...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Craig Steven Wright v Peter McCormack
...on ED & F Man Capital Markets Ltd v Come Harvest Holdings Ltd [2022] EWHC 229 (Comm), [134]–[136], Blackledge v Persons Unknown [2021] EWHC 1994 (QB), [40]–[48] and Dudley v Phillips [2022] EWHC 930 120 In order to demonstrate actual harm, Dr Wright relied on: (a) Retweets and replies to......
-
Jack Aaronson Aka Dominic Ford v Marcus Stones Aka Mickey Taylor
...case. 425 Turning to comparator cases, the Claimant relied in particular on the judgment of Saini J in Blackledge v Persons Unknown [2021] EWHC 1994 (QB), although he said it involved a significantly lower scale of publication than did this case. Saini J said at [1]–[2]: “1. The Claimant, ......
-
Rebekah Vardy v Coleen Rooney
...draw adverse inferences: Armorie v Delamirie (1721) 93 ER 664; Gulati v MGN Ltd [2017] QB 149, [107]; Blackledge v Person(s) Unknown [2021] EWHC 1994 (QB), [41] and Dudley v Phillips [2022] EWHC 930 (QB), [25]. I address below, in the context of my review of the evidence, the inferences ......
-
Simon Schofield v Politicalite Ltd
...was taken, albeit not in relation to all three of the causes of action established in this case, in Blackledge v Person(s) Unknown [2021] EWHC 1994 (QB), Saini J, [34] and Glenn v Kline [2021] EWHC 468 (QB), Richard Spearman QC, [95]. 24 I have adopted the approach followed by Ms McNeil-W......
-
A shot in the dark? Claims against “persons unknown”
...illustrates how the courts, in the age of social media, can help to tackle anonymous defamation and campaigns of online abuse. [1] [2021] EWHC 1994 (QB)...