Rachel Riley v Laura Murray
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Justice Nicklin |
| Judgment Date | 20 December 2021 |
| Neutral Citation | [2021] EWHC 3437 (QB) |
| Docket Number | Case No: QB-2019-001964 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division |
[2021] EWHC 3437 (QB)
THE HONOURABLE Mr Justice Nicklin
Case No: QB-2019-001964
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
MEDIA & COMMUNICATIONS LIST
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
William Bennett QC and John Stables (instructed by Patron Law Limited) for the Claimant
William McCormick QC and Jacob Dean (instructed by Carter-Ruck) for the Defendant
Hearing dates: 10–12 May 2021
Approved Judgment
This is the judgment following the trial of the Claimant's libel action. The claim concerns a Tweet posted by the Defendant on 3 March 2019. The judgment is divided into the following sections:
A: The Parties
| Section | Paragraphs | |
| A. | The Parties | [2]–[3] |
| B. | The Tweets | [4]–[24] |
| C. | Determination of the preliminary issues of meaning, fact/opinion and whether defamatory | [25]–[27] |
| D. | The Statements of Case | [28]–[30] |
| E. | Issues for determination | [31] |
| F. | Witnesses at trial | [32] |
| G. | Serious harm to reputation: s.1 Defamation Act 2013 | [33]–[47] |
| (1) Law | [33]–[34] | |
| (2) Evidence | [35]–[38] | |
| (3) Submissions | [39]–[41] | |
| (4) Decision | [42]–[47] | |
| H. | Truth | [48]–[80] |
| (1) Law | [50]–[52] | |
| (2) Submissions | [53]–[62] | |
| (3) Decision | [63]–[80] | |
| I. | Honest Opinion | [81]–[102] |
| (1) Law | [85]–[86] | |
| (2) Submissions | [87]–[91] | |
| (3) Decision | [92]–[102] | |
| J. | Publication on a matter of public interest | [103]–[131] |
| (1) Law | [103]–[108] | |
| (2) Submissions | [109]–[119] | |
| (3) Decision | [120]–[131] | |
| K. | Remedies | [132]–[159] |
| (1) Law | [135]–[137] | |
| (2) Evidence | [138]–[143] | |
| (3) Submissions | [144]–[145] | |
| (4) Decision | [146]–[159] |
The Claimant is a television presenter, probably best known for her appearance on the Channel 4 programme, Countdown. The Claimant was a regular user of Twitter, the social media platform. In March 2019, she had some 625,000 followers. From September 2018, the Claimant had publicly spoken to condemn what she regarded as the fostering of anti-Semitism in the Labour Party under Jeremy Corbyn.
In March 2019, the Defendant was the Stakeholder Manager for the leader of the Labour Party, at that time, Jeremy Corbyn MP. The Defendant was also a user of Twitter. In March 2019, she had some 7,252 followers.
B: The Tweets
This libel action concerns a Tweet by the Defendant, but to understand the context it is necessary first to set out two earlier Tweets; one by Owen Jones, The Guardian journalist, and the other by the Claimant.
On 10 January 2019, Owen Jones posted the following message on Twitter referring to an incident in which an egg had been thrown at Nick Griffin, the former leader of the British National Party:
At around 15.30 on 3 March 2019, Jeremy Corbyn was assaulted with an egg whilst he was visiting the Finsbury Park Mosque. A member of Mr Corbyn's team apparently detained the assailant, and he was subsequently arrested. Media reports of the incident started to appear from around 16.30 on 3 March 2019. At 17.25 The Guardian reported that a man had been arrested for hitting Mr Corbyn with an egg. A party source, quoted in the article, said that Mr Corbyn had not been injured and had continued his visit following the incident.
At 18.16, the Claimant posted the following Tweet (“the Good Advice Tweet”):
The Claimant was referring to the incident involving the assault on Mr Corbyn earlier that afternoon, but only a reader of the Good Advice Tweet who was aware of the assault on Mr Corbyn would have understood the reference from the Claimant's use of the egg, and a rose, to depict the Labour Party.
One person who did understand this reference in the Good Advice Tweet was the Defendant. At 20:10, the Defendant posted the following Tweet in reply to the Good Advice Tweet:
The Claimant did not reply to that Tweet. In her evidence at trial, the Claimant stated that she did not recall whether she had seen this Tweet but she was unaware of who the Defendant was.
The Defendant posted two further responses to other Tweets:
i) At 20.37, she replied to @Problemspartof:
“… She was referring to Jeremy eg. saying if Jeremy doesn't want eggs thrown at him he should stop being a Nazi. This both implies (a) that he's a Nazi and (b) that he deserved the violent assault he received today.”
ii) At 20.40, she replied to @Problemspartof and @briantaylor56:
“The context is that Jeremy was attacked today. She is saying if Jeremy doesn't want eggs thrown at him he should stop being a Nazi. This both implies (a) that he's a Nazi and (b) that he deserved the violent assault he received today.”
At 21.03, the Defendant posted a further Tweet (“the Defendant's Tweet”):
The Defendant's Tweet did not reply to, quote Tweet, or otherwise include (for example by screenshot) the Good Advice Tweet. That is going to be a point of some significance in this case. In her evidence at trial, the Defendant stated that the reason she had not quote-Tweeted or otherwise included the Good Advice Tweet was that she did not want to “drive additional traffic” to the Good Advice Tweet. Whatever the motivation, in practical terms, it meant that the Good Advice Tweet was not immediately available to anyone reading the Defendant's Tweet. Unless the reader manually searched through the Claimant's Tweets, s/he would be entirely dependent upon the Defendant's description of the Good Advice Tweet to understand what the Claimant had said.
The Good Advice Tweet and the Defendant's Tweet provoked a large number of responses (see further [36] below).
The Defendant relies upon direct responses to, and quote-Tweets of, the Good Advice Tweet to demonstrate, she contends, that a significant number of people interpreted the Good Advice Tweet to mean that Jeremy Corbyn deserved to be attacked because he was a Nazi. Mr McCormick QC identified these responses in two Appendices to the Defendant's skeleton argument for trial. By way of example, and selected from the immediate responses to the Good Advice Tweet on 3 March 2019, the Defendant relies upon the following:
i) (@p_m_b): “When you have to resort to this, you've lost the debate. @RachelRileyRR condoning violence against the leader of the opposition, a sitting elected MP, because he's on the left and she's on the right. Awful. @channel4 should review this behaviour”.
ii) (@pagster57): “Wow! Rachel Riley calling Jeremy Corbyn who'd just been attacked, a Nazi. Are you going to act in this @Channel4? This is dangerous”.
iii) (@StopCityAirport): “This is abhorrent. The suggestion that Corbyn is a Nazi because an egg was thrown at him. This is Hate Speech. This is the subtle nuances that make evil become the norm. Awful. Shameful. Desperate.”
iv) (@CallumMilburn24): “ I agree with almost all of the constructive criticism surrounding the Labour Party and Anti-Semitism but this is outrageous. Insinuating Corbyn is a Nazi is losing touch with reality.”
v) (@RIGIDDOGMA): “Cheering on far-right violence is it?”
vi) (@moroniscarrot): “Both calling the leader of her majesty's opposition a nazi and celebrating a physical assault on him inspired by such rhetoric? That's a really good look that. Very moral high ground.”
vii) (@blazerunner): “Riley should face criminal charges for incitement. At the very least she should be cautioned by police concerning her attitude to the Leader of the Opposition”.
viii) (@ClaireTromans): “Imagine being the kind of person to celebrate an almost 70-year-old man being hit in the head. Just imagine”.
ix) (@a_nitak): “Revealing your true colours here Rachel. Condoning violence? Quite disgusting”.
x) (@TheEmanFifty): “A 69-year-old man gets punched and you condone such actions? Stay away from the crack pipe Riley and stick to the calculator”.
xi) (@beverlydawnrose): “Corbyn's fought for equality for all people his whole life and was physically assaulted today, while visiting a mosque. You're applauding his assault & calling him a Nazi. What? You're reported”.
On the other hand, the Claimant can point to responses to the Good Advice Tweet — usually responding to other comments criticising the Claimant — that show that the reader understood the message it conveyed differently:
i) (@iainl7): “Nobody's gloating at Corbyn getting egged. It's a bad thing that undermines the very serious claims against him. However, an awful lot of people are gloating at Jones's fetish for political violence coming back to bit him”.
ii) (@GeneralWoundwort): “ I didn't read it as that but as tongue-in-cheek highlighting [Owen Jones'] sanctimony over this. If you don't want your preferred public figures egged, don't justify egging public figures you dislike…”
iii) (@DisraeliRascal): “She didn't label him a nazi… what is it with twitter: she highlighted a clear hypocrisy.
iv) (@Cameleopardisuk): “The fact that you can't see how this is a jab at the lefts (sic) hypocrisy its incredible. If its (sic) wrong to throw an egg at someone you agree with its wrong to do it to someone you disagree with — simple.”
v) (@LBuhmgravy): “How so? Rachel has just used Owen's remarks about a similar situation! She isn't throwing the egg or calling Corbyn a Nazi! Careful! With your 2+2 making 5 is it actually you likening Jezza to a Nazi… [and then in response to another reply that has been deleted] Is she? Or is she showing Owen Jones justifying violence from the left not so very long ago?”
vi) (@lucid_leigh): “You're being intentionally obtuse, her argument is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Arron Banks v Carole Cadwalladr
...and the principles have been analysed by Nicklin J in Turley v Unite the Union [2019] EWHC 3547 (QB), [107]–[109] and Riley v Murray [2021] EWHC 3437 (QB), [2022] EMLR 8, [34]. Although there were differences of emphasis, I do not understand there to be any dispute between the parties as ......
-
Rodney Goldsmith v Michael Bissett-Powell
...beyond dispute that the imputations complained of are all extremely serious …’” 149 Drawing the threads together, in Riley v Murray [2021] EWHC 3437 (QB), [34], Nicklin J set out the approach by reference to what was said in Turley v Unite the Union [2019] EWHC 3547 (QB), [107]–[108]: “[1......
-
Rachel Riley v Mike Sivier
...Print Ltd [2020] AC 612, and by Nicklin J in Turley v Unite the Union [2019] EWHC 3547 (QB), [107]–[109] and Riley v Murray [2021] EWHC 3437 (QB), [2022] EMLR 8, 103 Drawing on these authorities, in Banks v Cadwalladr [2022] EWHC 1417 (QB), [2022] EMLR 21, I summarised the applicable pri......
-
Sayed Zulfikar Abbas Bukhari v Syed Tauqeer Bukhari
...by the courts in Foley v Lord Ashcroft [2012] EMLR 25, Bokova v Associated Newspapers Ltd [2018] EWHC 2032 (QB), Riley v Murray [2021] EWHC 3437 (QB) and Hijazi v Yaxley-Lennon [2021] EMLR 7. It then identified what the claimant described as the key issues rendering the Defence non-compli......