Richard Millett v The Right Honourable Jeremy Corbyn MP
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Justice Saini |
| Judgment Date | 10 July 2020 |
| Neutral Citation | [2020] EWHC 1848 (QB) |
| Docket Number | Case No: QB-2019-002079 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division |
| Date | 10 July 2020 |
[2020] EWHC 1848 (QB)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
MEDIA AND COMMUNICATIONS LIST
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
THE HONOURABLE Mr Justice Saini
Case No: QB-2019-002079
William Bennett QC and John Stables (instructed by Patron Law) for the Claimant
Anthony Hudson QC and Mark Henderson (instructed by Howe & Co. Solicitors) for the Defendant
Hearing date: 23 June 2020
Approved Judgment
I direct that pursuant to CPR PD 39A para 6.1 no official shorthand note shall be taken of this Judgment and that copies of this version as handed down may be treated as authentic.
This judgment is in 9 parts as follows:
I. Overview — paras. [1–17]
I. Overview
This is a claim for defamation arising out of a statement (“the Statement”) made by the Defendant, The Right Honourable Jeremy Corbyn MP (“Mr. Corbyn”) during an interview on the Andrew Marr Show (“the Programme”) on 23 September 2018. The Programme was thereafter made available on BBC iPlayer and can still be viewed on that platform.
At the time the Statement was made Mr. Corbyn was the leader of the Labour Party and led the Opposition.
The Claimant, Mr. Richard Millett (“Mr. Millett”), is a “blogger” and commentator who regularly writes on a number of subjects including anti-Semitism and Israel. Over a number of years, Mr. Millett has attended meetings and events that concern the broad issues of Israel, its policies on Palestine and the Palestinian people. His blog posts often discuss such meetings and events, and he has become a well-known observer and reporter in this area.
Mr. Corbyn's interview with Andrew Marr concerned, amongst other subjects, allegations that Mr Corbyn was an anti-Semite. At the time of the interview, there was substantial and vigorous debate in the media and in other circles on the subject of claimed anti-Semitism within the Labour Party. Mr. Corbyn made the Statement in response to questions from Mr. Marr in relation to a speech which Mr. Corbyn had made some years earlier, on 15 January 2013.
The relevant parts of the speech and the Statement made on the Andrew Marr Show to Mr Corbyn (in advance of his questioning by Mr Marr) are set out below. I have taken the text from the verbatim transcript of the Programme. “AM” is Mr. Marr and “JC” is Mr. Corbyn. The words complained of are underlined and I have included Mr. Marr's questions to provide the context.
The relevant part of the Programme extract begins with the words “Recorded in 2013” appearing on screen before the video of Mr. Corbyn in 2013 is played to him during the live studio recording. In that video, Mr. Corbyn is shown saying the following in 2013:
“The other evening we had a meeting in parliament in which Manuel made an incredibly powerful and passionate and effective speech about the history of Palestine, the rights of the Palestinian people. This was dutifully recorded by the thankfully silent Zionists who were in the audience on that occasion and then came up and berated him afterwards for what he had said. They clearly have two problems. One is they don't want to study history and secondly, having lived in this country for a very long time, and probably all their lives, they don't understand English irony either.”
[Mr. Marr then picks up his questions straight after the video has been played]
AM: A strange thing to say.
JC: Well, I was at a meeting in the House of Commons and the two people I referred to had been incredibly disruptive, indeed the police wanted to throw them out of the meeting. I didn't. I said they should remain in the meeting. They had been disruptive at a number of meetings. At the later meeting when Manuel spoke they were quiet, but they came up and were really, really strong on him afterwards and he was quite upset by it. I know Manuel Hassassian quite well. And I was speaking in his defence. Manuel of course is the Palestinian Ambassador of this country.
AM: But why did you say, ‘English irony?’
JC: Well, because of the way that Manuel, whose first language is not English has an incredible command of English and made a number of ironic remarks towards them during the interchange that I had with them. This did happen some years ago, by the way.
AM: And you also said that these people who might have been in this country for a very long time. What's relevant about that?
JC: That Manuel had come recently to this country and fully understands English humour and irony and the use of language. They were both British born people who clearly obviously had been here all their lives.
AM: But we've just agreed that the people who can identify antisemitism best are Jewish people. Many Jewish people thought that was anti-Semitic.
JC: They were very, very abusive to Manuel. Very abusive. And I was upset on his behalf from what he'd — he'd spoken obviously at the meeting but also the way he was treated by them at the end of it. And so I felt I should say something in his support. And I did.
AM: Given what Jewish comrades, Jewish members of the Labour Party have said about this, do you now accept that what you said was anti-Semitic?
JC: Well, it was not intended to be anti-Semitic in any way and I have no intention and have absolute opposition in every way to anti-Semitism though I can see where it leads to. I can see where it leads to now in Poland, in Hungary, in Central Europe, I can see where it led to in the past. We have to oppose racism in any form and I do…”
By this claim, issued on 10 June 2020, Mr. Millett alleges that the words spoken by Mr. Corbyn in the Programme (as underlined above) were defamatory of him and their publication caused and is likely to cause serious harm to his reputation.
As will be immediately apparent, Mr. Millett was not identified by name in the Statement by Mr. Corbyn (he was not named as one of the “two people” or “they”). That has given rise to one of the major issues before me, the issue of reference.
By Order dated 26 March 2020, Master Cook directed a trial of three preliminary issues in this claim as follows:
(a) the natural and ordinary meaning of the statement complained of, including whether it refers to Mr Millett, and any reference innuendo;
(b) whether that meaning conveys a statement of fact or opinion, or else in part a statement of fact and in part of opinion; and
(c) whether the meaning conveys a defamatory tendency at common law.
Master Cook refused however to order a trial of the issue of serious harm to reputation (section 1 of the Defamation Act 2013).
The trial of preliminary issues was conducted before me by way of a remote Skype hearing on 23 June 2020. Both parties submitted witness statements by way of evidence but oral evidence was not called. It did not seem to me that the principal facts were in dispute and I confirmed this with Leading Counsel for each of the parties.
The substantive issues argued before me were principally in relation to matters of law and inferences to be drawn, and assessments to be made, on the basis of evidential material which consisted (originally) of 5 articles preceding the Statement. It was not in dispute that this material was only relevant to the issue of reference. That is, were the words used by Mr. Corbyn such as reasonably in the circumstances would lead persons acquainted with Mr. Millett to believe he was the person referred to in the Statement?
However, in addition to the originally pleaded 5 articles (“the original articles”) in support of Mr. Millett's case on reference, on the morning of the hearing of the trial he sought permission to amend his Particulars of Claim to rely upon 5 additional articles (“the new articles”). Although a draft amended pleading had been sent to Mr. Corbyn's solicitors on 16 June 2020 (to which there was no response), an application notice seeking permission to amend was not issued by Mr. Millett until the day before the trial.
Mr. Corbyn did not consent to the amendment. The parties however invited me to decide the preliminary issues taking into account the new articles and to leave the issue of amendment to another day. I was not happy with that course. It seemed to me that I should not embark upon the trial without clarity as to the exact nature of the pleaded case which the Claimant was to be permitted to pursue. To allow the new articles to be relied upon in relation to the issue of reference (and to give a judgment including these articles) but to defer the issue of amendment to a time after judgment was not logical. Either the new articles were “in” or they were “out” for all purposes. They could not be “in” for the purpose of a decision on the issue of reference (which would give rise to new causes of action) but then be the subject of some opposition if they were relied upon in support for example of Mr. Millett's case on serious harm or damage.
Having expressed this provisional view at the outset, I allowed detailed submissions to be made by both parties in relation to the new articles (assuming they were included as part of the Claimant's case). By the time the oral hearing concluded, and after some reflection, the parties agreed with me that the issue of amendment had to be addressed and could not be deferred to a later date.
In these circumstances, Leading Counsel for Mr. Corbyn opposed the amendment. He relied (amongst other points) upon its lateness and the lack of evidence justifying the delay. However, given the nature of the arguments which were made on his behalf (some of which raised points of law on...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The Rt Hon Jeremy Corbyn MP v Richard Millett
...APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION) ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION MEDIA AND COMMUNICATIONS LIST Mr Justice Saini [2020] EWHC 1848 Royal Courts of Justice Strand, London, WC2A 2LL Covid-19 Protocol: This judgment was handed down remotely by circulation to parties' repre......