Roberts v Gable

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
JudgeLord Justice Ward,Lord Justice Sedley,Lord Justice Moore-Bick
Judgment Date12 July 2007
Neutral Citation[2007] EWCA Civ 721
Docket NumberCase No: A2/2006/1235
CourtCourt of Appeal (Civil Division)
Date12 July 2007
Between
1. Christopher Roberts
2. Barry Roberts
Appellants
and
1. Gerry Gable
2. Steve Silver
3. Searchlight Magazine Ltd
Respondents

[2007] EWCA Civ 721

Before

the Rt Hon. Lord Justice Ward

the Rt Hon. Lord Justice Sedley and

the Rt Hon. Lord Justice Moore-Bick

Case No: A2/2006/1235

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE

COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)

ON APPEAL FROM QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION

THE HON. MR JUSTICE EADY

HQ04X03130

Royal Courts of Justice

Strand, London, WC2A 2LL

Mr H. Tomlinson QC and Mr A. Davies (instructed by Osmond & Osmond) for the appellant.

Mr G. Millar QC and Mr G. Vassall-Adams (instructed by Kosky Seal) for the respondent

Hearing date: 22nd February 2007

Judgement

Lord Justice Ward

Lord Justice Ward

A Short Introduction

1

The claimants, Christopher and Barry Roberts, claim that the defendants, Gerry Gable, Steve Silver and the Searchlight Magazine Ltd libelled them in an article in the October 2003 edition of a monthly magazine called Searchlight, the natural and ordinary meaning of which is said to be that:

“(i) the first claimant stole money collected at a British National Party (“BNP”) rally, (ii) he did not return it until threatened with being reported to the police, (iii) both claimants threatened to kneecap, torture and kill Dave Hill and Robert Jeffries alias Bob James, and the families of Dave Hill and Robert Jeffries alias Bob James and (iv) both claimants might be subject to police investigation.”

2

The defendants advanced two defences to this claim, justification and qualified privilege. The Master directed that the question of whether the words complained of were published on an occasion of qualified privilege in accordance with the principles set out by the House of Lords in Reynolds v Times Newspapers Ltd [2001] 1 A.C. 127 should be tried as a preliminary issue.

3

On the trial of that issue Eady J. “had no hesitation in upholding the privilege defence” and so on 12th May 2006 he ordered that the claim be dismissed. The claimants now appeal with permission of this Court. The appeal gives rise to important issues about the operation of the so-called Reynolds' and reportage defences.

The facts

4

The third defendant is the publisher of the magazine Searchlight and the second defendant is its editor. The third defendant is the author of the article concerned. He explains in his witness statement that:

Searchlight is a monthly magazine that reports on the activities of far-right organizations and political parties in Britain and abroad. … We have built up a circulation of 5,000. … Our readership is predominantly comprised of people who are particularly concerned about the racist far-right and neo-Nazi and fascist groups. We count a significant number of MPs, academics, journalists, elements of the criminal justice system and organisations concerned with race relations among our readership along with concerned members of the public.”

Its political stance is openly critical of the BNP and this case is concerned with the way some of the activities of the Party and its members and former members were reported in the journal in 2003.

5

Mr Gable describes himself as one who is

“… recognised as a leading expert on the far right in Britain and in Europe. I have appeared on numerous television programmes, lectured in Western Europe, the USA, Canada and the Middle East, written two reports for the European Parliament on racism, fascism and xenophobia and given evidence before the House of Commons Committee on Home Affairs on a number of occasions …”

6

The claimants, who are brothers, are men of good character. Both are active members of the BNP. At the material time Christopher was their London organiser. He was a potential candidate for the party in the campaign for the London mayoral election due to take place in 2004. He was the BNP candidate in the European elections in June 2004 and stood at the 2005 general election. There are descriptions in the papers of his successful career as an insurance broker in the City of London. Barry Roberts is a central heating engineer. He had been a BNP candidate at the 2001 general election. He stood again in 2005.

7

They are ill-disposed towards, even contemptuous of, the defendants and are less than flattering about their professional standards and probity. Each side is prepared to trade insults with the other and it is obvious that there is no love lost between them.

8

Mr Gable explains that the background to his article which has caused such offence was:

“that there has been a long-standing power struggle over the policies and the direction of the BNP between Nick Griffin its current leader, and the late John Tyndall, the founder of the party. John Tyndall founded the BNP in 1982, along with ex-members of the National Front and under his leadership the party aspires to openly neo-Nazi policies such as banning marriages between whites and non-whites and the forcible sterilisation of immigrants. Its policies were watered down after Tyndall served a term of imprisonment in the mid-eighties for offences under the Race Relations Provisions of the Public Order Act. Nick Griffin, who has a similar conviction, became party leader in 1999 and has sought to re-brand the party to give it a more respectable and credible image.

Mr Tyndall did not fade from the scene and used his position as owner and editor of Spearhead, a far-right magazine, to attack Nick Griffin and his policies. … Activists were split, with some their owing allegiance to Mr Griffin and others still supporting Mr Tyndall.”

9

As evidence of that power struggle our attention was drawn to an article by Mr Griffin called “At the crossroads” published in Identity in July 2003 in which he writes that:

“Over the last few years, it has been the general policy of the British National Party leadership not to respond in our main publications to the continual negativity, distortions and downright lies emerging from the small but disruptive clique surrounding the former BNP leader John Tyndall.

[Mr Tyndall] has spent the last four years trying to cause trouble for the present leadership and to create support for his long-awaited comeback bid.”

10

In a long article in the October 2003 edition of Spearhead Mr Tyndall “pinpoints what is dividing the BNP”. The headline of the article expressing his view is “Policies are not the problem: the problem is Mr Griffin.” His article ends:

“But first things first. Before anything permanently can be done, we have to get rid of the wrecker-in-chief.”

11

The events with which we are concerned arise from a GRAND RALLYto promote the BNP campaign for the London mayoral and GLA elections in 2004.” It was advertised in Spearhead to take place on Sunday March 9th but the readers were told that for security reasons the location of the rally would not be divulged in the magazine but that information about it could be obtained by telephone. Chris Roberts and John Tyndall were billed as speakers.

12

There are conflicting reports of what happened at that meeting. The British Nationalist, the members' bulletin for March 2003, supporting Mr Griffin, reported as follows:

London 'rally' shambles

Last month a meeting to reinvigorate the party in London's East End turned into a shambles. The meeting was hijacked by disruptive elements, many of whom not members of our party – and the event served not to breathe new life into the East End and support the party's GLA campaign next year, but to attack the party, its leadership and add personal grievances of all kinds.

The keynote address was given by the party's previous, old leader, Mr John Tyndall, who launched a strong attack upon the party. This is merely the latest in a continual barrage of attacks that began last summer, the object of which is to cause as much disruption as possible.

Proscription

David Hill of Stepney, east London is henceforth a proscribed person. A non-member, Dave Hill with Robert Jeffries aka 'Bob James' (himself a proscribed person) and one other forcibly entered the home of London & the Essex regional organiser Chris Roberts on 9/3/03 and, with threats, stole £1,024 collection taken at the day's east London meeting, Hill and Jeffries were prominent in turning the East End rally into a farcical bear garden. The matter is now in the hands of the police.”

13

On the other hand, April's Spearhead reported “ London rally best for years” stating:

East London saw one of its best BNP meetings for many years on 9th March when an audience of 120 gathered above a pub in Newham to hear speeches aimed at generating support for the party's campaign to contest the London mayoral election and the elections to the Greater London Authority in 2004.

The meeting ended in tremendous enthusiasm and a collection raised a really splendid £1,024.00.”

14

Searchlight itself reported the meeting in its April 2003 edition. Mr Nick Lowles wrote:

“The fractious infighting in the British National Party shows little sign of abating as its north-west regional organiser resigns and its former leader, John Tyndall, rallies forces against the current leadership in London.

Over 100 London activists attended the meeting arranged by the BNP east London organiser …

Despite the best efforts of Chris Roberts to keep to the set agenda, Tyndall and others openly attacked the leadership, Tyndall's exceptionally robust and bitter speech never mentioned anyone by name, referring only to “our chairman” and “our leadership”. His words were punctuated by bursts of applause, especially when he directly criticised the party leadership.”

15

Mr Gable wrote about this meeting for the first time in the May 2003 edition of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
40 cases
  • Harry Isaacs v Berita Harian Sdn Bhd
    • Malaysia
    • Court of Appeal (Malaysia)
    • Invalid date
  • Grant et al. v. Torstar Corp. et al., (2009) 397 N.R. 1 (SCC)
    • Canada
    • Canada (Federal) Supreme Court (Canada)
    • 23 April 2009
    ...1634, refd to. [para. 120]. Prince Radu of Hohenzollern v. Houston, [2007] EWHC 2735 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 120]. Roberts v. Gable, [2007] EWCA Civ. 721; [2008] 2 W.L.R. 129 (C.A.), refd to. [para. Bonnick v. Morris, [2003] 1 A.C. 300; [2002] UKPC 31, refd to. [para. 124]. Pizza Pizza Ltd.......
  • Grant et al. v. Torstar Corp. et al., (2009) 258 O.A.C. 285 (SCC)
    • Canada
    • Canada (Federal) Supreme Court (Canada)
    • 23 April 2009
    ...1634, refd to. [para. 120]. Prince Radu of Hohenzollern v. Houston, [2007] EWHC 2735 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 120]. Roberts v. Gable, [2007] EWCA Civ. 721; [2008] 2 W.L.R. 129 (C.A.), refd to. [para. Bonnick v. Morris, [2003] 1 A.C. 300; [2002] UKPC 31, refd to. [para. 124]. Pizza Pizza Ltd.......
  • Grant v. Torstar Corp., 2009 SCC 61
    • Canada
    • Supreme Court (Canada)
    • 22 December 2009
    ...(U.K.) Ltd., [2001] EWCA Civ 1634 (BAILII); Prince Radu of Hohenzollern v. Houston, [2007] EWHC 2735 (QB) (BAILII); Roberts v. Gable, [2007] EWCA Civ 721, [2008] 2 W.L.R. 129; Bonnick v. Morris, [2002] UKPC 31, [2003] 1 A.C. 300; Pizza Pizza Ltd. v. Toronto Star Newspapers Ltd. (1998), 42 O......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
4 books & journal articles
  • Administrative and Constitutional Law
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Annual Review No. 2008, December 2008
    • 1 December 2008
    ...publisher must have acted like a responsible publisher in taking the steps to verify the information published. 1.158 In Roberts v Gable[2008] QB 502, Ward LJ said at [60]—[61] that the basis for justifying the Reynolds (Reynolds v Times Newspaper[2001] 2 AC 127) defence ‘is the public poli......
  • Administrative and Constitutional Law
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Annual Review No. 2007, December 2007
    • 1 December 2007
    ...of privilege and neutral reportage derived from the English cases of Reynolds v Times Newspaper Ltd[2001] 2 AC 127 and Roberts v Gable[2007] EWCA Civ 721, it was argued that there was a need for a defamation law expert to equalise the playing field between the parties to the defamation suit......
  • UK DEFAMATION ACT 2013
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Journal No. 2014, December 2014
    • 1 December 2014
    ...see Kearns v General Council of the Bar[2003] 1 WLR 1357; cfGrant v Torstar Corp[2009] SCC 61 and Seaga v Harper[2009] 1 AC 1 at 11. 49[2007] EWCA Civ 721. 50Roberts v Gable[2007] EWCA Civ 721 at [61]. 51[2007] EWCA Civ 972; [2008] 1 All ER 750 at [54] and [91] respectively. 52 Section 4(6)......
  • What Conversation? Free Speech and Defamation Law
    • United Kingdom
    • The Modern Law Review No. 73-5, September 2010
    • 1 September 2010
    ...Eg Al-Fagih vH H Saudi Research & Marketing UK [2001] EWCA Civ 1634; [2002] EMLR 13;Roberts vGable [2007] EWCACiv 721; [2008] QB 502;s ee alsoJameel n104 above at [62];althoughthe‘bounds of reportage’remain subject to further argument and decision: Milmo and Rogers, n110 above,[15.18] and t......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT