Peter Cruddas v 1) Jonathan Calvert and Others
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Lord Justice Longmore,Lady Justice Rafferty,Sir Stephen Sedley |
| Judgment Date | 21 June 2013 |
| Neutral Citation | [2013] EWCA Civ 748 |
| Docket Number | Case No: A2/2013/1535 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Date | 21 June 2013 |
[2013] EWCA Civ 748
The Right Honourable Lord Justice Longmore
The Right Honourable Lady Justice Rafferty
and
The Right Honourable Sir Stephen Sedley
Case No: A2/2013/1535
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE TUGENDHAT
HQ12D03024
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Mr Richard Rampton QC, Ms Heather Rogers QC & Mr Aidan Eardley (instructed by Bates Wells Braithwaite) for the Appellants
Mr Desmond Browne QC & Mr Matthew Nicklin QC (instructed by Slater & Gordon) for the Respondent
Approved Judgment
Hearing dates: 14 th June 2013
On 15 th March 2012 two undercover journalists working for The Sunday Times but posing as representatives of Middle Eastern investors with money in a Liechtenstein fund met Mr Peter Cruddas a Treasurer of the Conservative Party. They secretly recorded the meeting and allege that he offered access to Ministers for cash and discussed ways round the requirement that contributors to party funds be resident in the United Kingdom.
The defendants published 4 articles and an editorial on 25th March 2012. In broad terms the first article said that Mr Cruddas offered access to Ministers for cash and the more the cash the better the access. £250,000 would be premier league for access. It was also reported that Mr Cruddas said he was happy for the proposed donors to find a way around the rule that party donations had to come from UK donors and that he would urge a meeting with "compliance people" to check that that way was legitimate.
The second article reminded the reader of Mr Cameron's comments in opposition that secret lobbying was the next big scandal waiting to happen and that the Conservatives would be the party who would "sort all this out". The figure of £250,000 for access was again mentioned. The problem that the money came from a foreign wealth fund was identified and Mr Cruddas reportedly said he was prepared to discuss a range of ways the money could be brought on-shore.
The third article was entitled
"Pay the money this way and the party won't pry."
It reported that Mr Cruddas did not seem perturbed by the fact that foreign donations were prohibited under British election law or that the money was coming from a tax haven because he was sure there were ways to work around it. Forming a UK subsidiary company was one way or the reporters could make the donation themselves as British citizens using money from their Middle Easters clients' finds.
A fourth article and an editorial were also written. The first was headed "Rotten to the core" and the second compared the Conservative Party to the Labour Party's "corrupt relationship with its donors while Labour was in office". Those were not relied on as being defamatory in themselves but as being part of the context in which the 3 articles were written.
Mr Cruddas has sued the writers of the articles and Times Newspapers Ltd as the publishers of the Sunday Times for both libel and malicious falsehood. Just before the pre-trial review the defendants agreed with Mr Cruddas' proposal that the case was not suitable for trial by jury and trial by judge alone was fixed for the week of 17 th June 2013. The parties then decided to ask the judge to make a preliminary ruling on the meaning of the articles for the purpose of both the libel and the malicious falsehood claims. The libel claims required the judge to ascertain the "single meaning" of the articles containing the reports of the meeting and the allegations made because, for the purpose of those claims, the law deems there to be only one meaning. Since Ajinomoto Sweeteners Europe SAS v Asda Stores Ltd [2011] QB 497 held that the single meaning rule did not apply to malicious falsehood claims, the parties further invited the judge to identify the range of possible meanings which a substantial number of people would consider the articles to have had. In that way the scope of any trial could be confined within reasonable limits.
Mr Cruddas pleaded that the natural and ordinary meaning of the articles was as follows:-
"(1) In return for cash donations to the Conservative Party, the claimant corruptly offered for sale the opportunity to influence government policy and gain unfair advantage through secret meetings with the Prime Minister and other senior ministers.
(2) The claimant made the offer, even though he knew that the money offered for secret meetings was to come, in breach of the ban under UK electoral law, from Middle Eastern investors in a Liechtenstein fund; and
(3) further, in order to circumvent and thereby evade the law, the claimant was happy that the foreign donors should use deceptive devices, such as creating an artificial UK company to donate the money or using UK employees as conduits, so that the true source of the donation would be concealed."
The defendants say that the articles meant no more than that what Mr Cruddas said in the course of the meeting on 15 th March was "inappropriate, unacceptable and wrong and gave rise to an impression of impropriety". They say further that the articles meant that Mr Cruddas was prepared to contemplate ways in which donations from an overseas fund could be made through using a legal loophole in the form of a UK subsidiary company to make the donation or by having UK individuals making the donation, even though the true source would be concealed.
Tugendhat J held [2013] EWHC 1427 (QB) that for libel Mr Cruddas' meanings were the relevant single meanings and for malicious falsehood that they were possible meanings. He explained that he considered "corruptly" in the first meaning to mean (inter alia) that Mr Cruddas was guilty of a criminal offence and that that was what the defendants were alleging.
The judge then considered an application to strike out paragraph 8 of the defence. That paragraph sought to justify the first meaning relied on by Mr Cruddas by saying that it was true in substance and in fact and particularised the matters relied on in the following way:-
"8.1 The defendants rely upon what the claimant said during the meeting on 15 th March 2012, which is contained in the recording and transcript of the meeting with the claimant. They repeat paragraphs 7.1 – 7.51 above.
8.2 The defendants' case is that the Articles do not allege that the claimant made such offer "corruptly". If (which is denied) any ordinary and reasonable reader understood the Articles to include such an imputation, the same could only have been derived as a result of their concluding that what the claimant had said in the course of the meeting (as reported in the Articles) amounted to corruption. That being so, since the Articles are a true report of the meeting and accurately quote what the claimant said, it follows that if any such reader understood the words in that sense (which the defendants deny), the same reader would necessarily conclude that the defendants have proved the truth of the Articles in that sense.
8.3 For the avoidance of doubt, although the claimant has not explained what he means by "corruptly" in his meaning, it is denied (if it be alleged by him) that the words bore or could reasonably be understood as bearing any allegation of guilt of any criminal offence."
The judge said (para 117) that he rejected the defendants' denial that the words bore any allegation of guilt of any criminal offence and that the facts relied on in paragraph 7 of the defence did not support the more serious (corruption) meaning pleaded to in paragraph 8. Paragraphs 8.1 and 8.3 of the defence did not therefore amount to justification. As to paragraph 8.2 the judge referred to the witness statement of Mr Witherow, the Editor of the Sunday Times when the articles were published, that in his view blatantly selling access was not corrupt but unethical. The judge seems to have accepted the argument for Mr Cruddas that this showed that by paragraph 8 of the defence the defendants were trying to achieve what the Editor had said was not the defendants' case. In other words the Sunday Times was trying to justify an allegation of corruption when its own editor was saying that he did not think blatantly selling access was corrupt at all.
The judge continued (para 121):-
"The difficulty with the defendants' case in para 8.2 of the amended defence is that the Articles (and the Extracts) do not consist solely of extracts from what the claimant said to the reporters, and they do not set out the whole of what he said to the reporters. In arriving at my conclusion on meaning I have referred to words in the Articles which are not quotations from what the claimant said, but are the defendants' description and interpretation of what he said.
It would be essential for the defendants' argument that they should establish that "the Articles are a true report of the meeting and accurately quote what that claimant said". But they cannot do that. All they can do is state that, in so far as they [sic] Articles contain quotations from what the claimant said, then those quotations are true and accurate. But since the Articles contain both more than what the claimant said, and less than the totality of what he said, the argument in para 8.2 of the amended defence is logically defective."
He therefore struck out paragraph 8 of the defence which left the defendants with no defence of justification. He entered judgment for Mr Cruddas on the libel claims with damages to be assessed.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Yours Naturally Naturally Yours Ltd v Kate McIver Skin Ltd
...of malicious falsehood. 70 Alternative meanings of an alleged malicious falsehood can include an implied meaning. In Cruddas v Calvert [2013] EWCA Civ 748, Longmore LJ (with whom Rafferty LJ and Sir Stephen Sedley agreed) discussed the multiple meaning rule in malicious falsehood: “30. Her......
-
Peter Cruddas v (1) Jonathan Calvert (2) Heidi Blake (3) Times Newspapers Ltd
...1427 (QB) (5 June 2013) ("the 5 June judgment"), but my judgment was varied in one respect by the Court of Appeal in their judgment [2013] EWCA Civ 748 (21 June 2013). At this second stage of the trial I have to determine all the remaining issues in the case. 2 The case is about the conduc......
-
Shakeel Begg v British Broadcasting Corporation
...involve an approximate centre-point in the range of possible meanings, or a dominant meaning for each broadcast ( per Longmore LJ in Cruddas v Calvert [2013] EWCA 748 at 43 Conventionally, the question of whether words are defamatory is approached in two stages, by first identifying the sin......
-
Stocker v Stocker
...meaning which the judge gave to the material complained of was wrong. The “satisfied/quite satisfied” dichotomy featured again in Cruddas v Calvert [2013] EWCA Civ 748; [2014] EMLR 5, para 18 Longmore LJ summarised the claimant's argument thus: “[Counsel for the claimants] relied heavily ......