Sir Keith Barron MP and Anr v Caven Vines
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Sir David Eady |
| Judgment Date | 16 February 2016 |
| Neutral Citation | [2016] EWHC 605 (QB) |
| Date | 16 February 2016 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division |
| Docket Number | Case No: TLJ/15/1185 |
[2016] EWHC 605 (QB)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
The Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London WC2A 2LL
Sir David Eady
Case No: TLJ/15/1185
Ms S Mansoori (instructed by Stech and Shamash) appeared on behalf of the Claimant
Mr Vines appeared in person
(As Approved)
Digital Transcript of WordWave International Ltd trading as DTI 8th Floor, 165 Fleet Street, London, EC4A 2DY Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7404 1424 Web: www.DTIGLOBAL.com Email: TTP@dtiglobal.eu (Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
This matter was before Warby J in April of last year. It is clear from his judgment of 29 April that in certain respects he found it a troubling case, as indeed have I.
The background is the independent inquiry commissioned by the Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council into child sexual exploitation and the report of Professor Jay of August 2014. She had concluded that some 1,400 children had been abused between 1997 and 2013.
The claimants are two of the Members of Parliament for the Rotherham area and the defendant is a member of the UKIP group on the council. If I may say so, it appears to me that he is a committed councillor who is determined to challenge wrongdoing wherever he sees it and to represent his constituents fearlessly.
Unfortunately, on Monday 5 January 2015, he was interviewed on television on Sky News, together with Sarah Champion, who is the third Member of Parliament for the Rotherham area, by a journalist called Kay Burley. The interview was in these terms:
"Kay Burley: It was particularly unimpressive that UKIP used the fourteen hundred kids that had been abused over sixteen years for party political favour and actually put a poster together saying, '1,400 reasons not to vote Labour'. Haven't those kids suffered enough? Was that really appropriate?
Caven Vines: The kids have suffered enough and, whether it was appropriate or not, I mean they did appalling … [he was interrupted]
Kay Burley: Was it or not?
Caven Vines: Well, I thought it was appropriate, yes. People need reminding. Those fourteen hundred kids had been abused and let go by the Labour Council and the Labour MPs. They knew what were going on, most … not Sarah, because she's only the new girl on the block. But certainly the other two, not telling me they didn't know. In fact MacShane in his book has openly said so. So yes people need reminding. We cannot forget that they let the kids down and they're still letting them down. There's still no arrests. What's going on? Nothing has altered, so we need to get in there and blow it open. This has got to be done."
He concluded by saying:
"Caven Vines: We've got this CSE [child sexual exploitation] problem. We've got to help these girls. We've got to rid the streets of these perpetrators …"
As a result of that, he was sued for libel by the two claimants, and Warby J granted summary judgment and ordered damages to be assessed.
There is now before me an application dated 19 January of this year to set aside the order of Warby J, whereby he granted summary judgment and, as I have said, ordered damages to be assessed. The damages are due to be assessed next week on 23 February. The judge had ruled on the meaning of the words in the course of his judgment, and he concluded at paragraph 47 in these terms:
"There is no dispute that the Defendant's references to the two Labour MPs were references to these claimants. In my judgment the ordinary reasonable viewer of Sky News who saw and heard the Defendant's interview will have understood him to be saying (1) that the Claimants knew for years most of what was going on by way of large-scale sexual abuse of children in Rotherham, and let it go on despite such knowledge; (2)...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sir Kevin Barron MP and Another v Caven Vines
...judgment is exercised only in exceptional circumstances, and that the proper route was to seek permission to appeal out of time: [2016] EWHC 605 (QB) [13–17]. (3) Undeterred, Mr Vines made a third attempt to set aside judgment at the outset of this hearing. Without issuing an application n......