Rodney Goldsmith v Michael Bissett-Powell
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Justice Julian Knowles |
| Judgment Date | 27 June 2022 |
| Neutral Citation | [2022] EWHC 1591 (QB) |
| Docket Number | Case No: QB-2020-000659 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division |
[2022] EWHC 1591 (QB)
Mr Justice Julian Knowles
Case No: QB-2020-000659
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
MEDIA AND COMMUNICATIONS LIST
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
The Claimant appeared in person
Hazel Hobbs (instructed by Green Wright Chalton Annis) for the Defendant
Hearing dates: 13–14 January 2022
Approved Judgment
Introduction
This is a claim for libel by Rodney Goldsmith, the Claimant, against Michael-Bissett-Powell, the Defendant. The Claimant drafted his own pleadings (with assistance) and represented himself, assisted by a McKenzie friend, Trevor Cree, to whom I am grateful. The Defendant is represented by Ms Hazel Hobbs of counsel.
The trial bundle runs to over 700 pages. Much of it has little or no relevance to the issues I have to decide and was not referred to by either side during the trial. I also received a trial skeleton argument from Ms Hobbs.
The Claimant's case
The Claimant and Defendant both live in Steyning (pronounced ‘Stenning’), which is a town and civil parish in the Horsham District of West Sussex. The matters complained of concern Steyning Parish Council (SPC).
The Claimant describes himself thus in his Amended Statement of Claim (ASoC):
“1. The Claimant has been Chairman of Steyning Parish Council (SPC) since May 2019 when a new council was elected, and he served as an SPC parish councillor for four years prior to that.
2. The Claimant is a very well-known and respected figure in the Steyning community — not only because of his role as a parish councillor, but also because he was for many years the proprietor of a very successful DIY shop in Steyning which was extremely well used by residents and he also employed significant numbers of local residents over the years.
3. The Claimant has for many years also arranged the transport for Brighton and Hove Albion football supporters from Steyning,
4. The Claimant has arranged many charity fund-raising events at the Steyning Cricket Club, of which he is an honorary life member in recognition of his contributions to local sporting activities, including the forming of Steyning Golf Society.
5. For all these reasons the Claimant is very well-known and respected in the Steyning community. He is probably the best-known resident within Steyning with the Defendant himself having coined the nickname ‘Mr Steyning’ in recognition of this.”
Not all of this is accepted by the Defendant, for example, that the Claimant is a ‘respected figure’ in Steyning.
The Defendant was an SPC parish councillor from May 2019 until he resigned on 22 August 2019. Following that resignation, according to the Claimant, the Defendant became a major contributor to a Facebook page entitled ‘Steyning Parish Council Watch … Keeping an Eye on the Parish Council’ (the Watch Site) of which, at the relevant time, he was one of the administrator/moderators. According to the ASoC, [9], the Watch Site is an open public site and so one does not need to be a member to view all postings. The Claimant said there are 400+ members from the Steyning community, but many local people view it without being members. The Claimant said that when he was first elected, the Defendant and he were allies but, following the Defendant's resignation, he become hostile to the Claimant.
This claim concerns postings on the Watch Site which the Claimant says were defamatory of him.
Section C of the ASoC is headed ‘The Libellous Statements Complained of and the Dates of Publication.’ Some posts are alleged to have been made by the Defendant. Others are said to have been posted by third parties, and that the Defendant as an administrator of the Watch Page is liable for them by virtue of s 5 of the Defamation Act 2013 (DA 2013). This provides that where an action for defamation is brought against the ‘operator’ of a website in respect of a statement posted on the website (s 5(1)), it is a defence for the operator to show that it was not the operator who posted the statement on the website (s 5(2)). However, this defence can be defeated in various ways, including if the operator is shown to have acted with malice (s 5(11)). For the avoidance of doubt, there is no claim that the Defendant was a common law publisher of these posts by others: the claim is brought under s 5 on the basis that the Defendant was a statutory ‘operator’.
The posts complained of were published in August, October, November and December 2019.
Paragraph 10 of the ASoC avers:
“10. On 28 August 2019 the Defendant posted to the Watch Site the libellous claim that the Claimant had cost the public purse a large amount of money (representing around 10% of the SPC annual budget) and was thrilled at that fact:-
‘I know one councillors [sic] who will be thrilled to have cost the public purse £23,000 — plus £8000 in lost grant money … the close and destructive working relationship between our Chairman and Vice-Chairman going back for many years’”
Paragraphs 11–13 aver:
“11. On 12 December 2019 the Defendant made the third in a series of postings to the Watch Site under a thread relating to the Victoria Sponge ( sic) coffee shop in Steyning which taken together libellously claim that the Claimant as Chairman of SPC had committed criminal acts including threatening the female proprietor of the said shop with a weapon and thereby reduced her to tears:
“I was going to keep quiet, but we all know respect should be earned. I will never respect anyone who threatens a woman with a stick, is verbally aggressive towards her and abuses his position as Chairman of the Parish Council in this way. A real man would apologise publicly and at least consider his position.'”.
12. Because it was under the Victoria Sponge coffee shop thread, the posting of 12 December 2019 clearly related back to an earlier posting on 23 November 2019 by the Defendant in the same thread:
‘I HAVE A DILEMMA Earlier this evening I requested further information about an incident reported to me which involved a High Street shop and the alleged poor behaviour of a Parish Councillor. It has been pointed out to me that the shop's owner might not want to ‘make a fuss’, which is why I have now deleted the post, BUT…
This Facebook site would not exist if our Parish Council behaved properly and, when they didn't, could be brought to account. Like many residents, I am frustrated that firm action has not been taken by Horsham District Council or anyone else to stop this situation from deteriorating even further. By agreement with me, even the police are delaying further action on an alleged criminal verbal abuse matter — while HDC reach a decision on the Parish Council. If they ever do.
My dilemma is this: I now have three separate accounts of the incident, all of which are so similar that 1 believe them to be accurate; in the absence of any sanctions, do I name the Councillor and demand that he resigns immediately?
I may, of course, receive a threat of litigation from the usual suspect if I do, but honestly, someone has to DO something.
Avoiding any further distress to the shop owner, what would you do? Nothing? Wait for ever for SPC or HDC to act? Or name and shame?’
13. The said posting of 23 November 2019 in turn was linked back to a previous posting earlier on 23 November 2019 by the Defendant by reason of being in the same ‘Victoria Sponge’ thread.
‘OUR WONDERFUL COUNCILLORS I have been told that a Councillor visited the admirable new “Victoria's Sponge” and then behaved in such a disgraceful way that one of the staff (perhaps the owner) was reduced to tears.
If true, this should be reported to HDC as a breach of the Code of Conduct, so if you were there or have any more details please personal message me.’”
The next section of the ASoC is headed ‘Postings by third parties for which Defendant is said to be liable as a site operator and publisher due to malice by reason of s 5(11) Libel Act 2013’ ( sic; this should read the Defamation Act 2013):
“14. ‘… corruption here …’ — SPC councillor Simon Alexander and site moderator, 22 October 2019
15 Michael Bissett-Powell can possibly fill you in about this. There was reportedly an incident at this cafe involving a member of the PC I imagine that's why this post is here.” — Dr Suzanne Conboy-Hill, on or about 28 November 2019
16. ‘Rick Hosburn because a Parish Councillor acted extremely inappropriately in this establishment victimised her and vandalised and stole her property. Victoria being a new business in Steyning does not want to cause trouble or draw attention to herself. she only wants positivity around her business …. he has stepped way above what he is allowed to say and do acting as a Parish Councillor and did not use the proper channels to remove her Board that only HE had a problem with If he has problems with Boards why has he not stolen all !he other Boards along the High Street. What I would like to know is who voted these people in to make rational sound decisions that affects all our lives living in Steyning.’ — Louise Abbott, 17 December 2019
17 ‘Victoria has been victimised by the Parish Council. The gentleman in question sorry … not a gentleman … the way he spoke to her and his actions thereafter … so I will say MAN … vandalised her Board outside …. then it totally disappeared so was stolen … not to mention speaking down to her and frightening her telling her who he was … she asked why all the other business in the High Street were allowed Boards but not her. The Estate Agent next right next door ( sic) puts a board out as do most others all along the High Street. The question is why was she picked out and victimised …. maybe the Councillor has connections to another cafe and is trying to sabotage Victoria Sponge … He should be reported to the Police and...
To continue reading
Request your trial