Sir Kevin Barron MP and Another v Caven Vines
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Justice Warby |
| Judgment Date | 29 April 2015 |
| Neutral Citation | [2015] EWHC 1161 (QB) |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division |
| Docket Number | Case No: IHJ/15/0148 |
| Date | 29 April 2015 |
[2015] EWHC 1161 (QB)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
The Honourable Mr Justice Warby
Case No: IHJ/15/0148
Gavin Millar QC (instructed by Steel & Shamash Solicitors) for the Claimants
The Defendant in person
Hearing date: 20 April 2015
REVISED 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 is an application for judgment for damages to be assessed in this action for slander and libel, which arises from a television broadcast in January 2015.
The Claimants are two of the three Labour MPs for the Rotherham area. The first Claimant has been the MP for the Rother Valley constituency since 1983. The second Claimant has represented Wentworth and Deane since 1997. The third Labour MP for the Rotherham area is Sarah Champion. She was elected at a by-election in November 2012, her predecessor being Denis MacShane, also of Labour.
The Defendant is the Councillor for the Rawmarsh Ward and the Leader of the UK Independence Party (UKIP) group on Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council (RMBC).
The RMBC commissioned an Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Exploitation in Rotherham. The Inquiry, conducted by Professor Alexis Jay OBE, reported in August 2014. It concluded that some 1,400 children had been abused over a sixteen year period.
On Monday 5 January 2015 the Defendant and Sarah Champion MP were interviewed live on air by Kay Burley of Sky News. The following exchanges took place:
"[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 …
[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 been let go by the Labour Council and the Labour MPs. They knew what were going off, most … not Sarah, because she's only the new girl on the block. But certainly the other two, not telling me they did not 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.
[Kay Burley] I don't know if Denis MacShane said that in his book, I'll take your word for it but I haven't read it.
…
[Kay Burley] How are you going to change things for the better?
[Caven Vines] We've got this CSE problem. We've got to help these girls. We've got to rid the streets of these perpetrators …"
I have set out in bold the words identified by Mr Millar QC as those of which the Claimants particularly complain. The response from Kay Burley is not relied on by the Claimants. The remainder of the exchange that I have set out is relied on by them as context.
The Claimants issued their claim form on 29 January 2015, two weeks after the broadcast, with Particulars of Claim attached. The Particulars are in conventional form, containing only 15 paragraphs. Paragraphs 1 to 8 plead the background facts that I have summarised at 2 to 4 above. Paragraphs 8, 9 and 10 plead the words complained of, which I have set out at 5 above. Paragraphs 8 to 10 of the Particulars of Claim allege that the words complained of were defamatory of the Claimants, and complain of their publication to Kay Burley and the film crew (alleged to be slander), and to a substantial number of viewers of Sky News via the live broadcast (alleged to be libel).
Paragraph 11 pleads the Claimants' case on meaning. This is that "in their natural and ordinary and/or inferential meaning" the Defendant's words "meant and were understood to mean":
" that the Claimants knew of child sexual exploitation involving 1,400 children in Rotherham over sixteen years but despite knowing this they let the sexual abuse of the children go on and are now failing to ensure that the perpetrators are arrested and brought to justice."
Paragraph 12 pleads that the words complained of were calculated to disparage the Claimants in their offices as MPs. Words which satisfy that criterion are actionable as a slander without the need to satisfy the ordinary common law requirement that they caused special damage: Defamation Act 1952, s 2.
The Defendant, who has represented himself with some limited legal assistance, filed a Defence on 10 February 2015. On 23 March the Claimants issued the applications now before the Court. They contend that the Defence discloses no reasonable grounds for defending the claim and/or is an abuse of the court's process. They apply to strike it out on one or both of those grounds, and for judgment to be entered for them accordingly. Alternatively, they seek a determination of the meaning of the words, and summary judgment pursuant to CPR 24 on the grounds that there is no real prospect of a successful defence to their claims and no other compelling reason for a trial. In either case, the Claimants seek an order for damages to be assessed.
Legal principles
The Claimant in an action for defamation normally needs to prove only three things to establish liability: (1) that the Defendant has published, or caused or authorised the publication of, words which (2) refer to the Claimant and (3) are defamatory of the Claimant. In an action for slander the Claimant also needs to prove that the publication has caused special damage or that the case falls within one of the exceptions to that common law requirement, such as the one relied on here, pursuant to s 2 of the 1952 Act.
A person who participates in an interview for broadcast will normally be responsible for the resulting publication by broadcast, as they will have caused or authorised it.
Whether particular words refer to a Claimant depends on whether an ordinary reasonable person knowing the Claimant would understand the words to refer to them.
Whether words are defamatory depends first of all on what meaning they would convey to the ordinary reasonable reader, or listener. The approach of the law to the determination of meaning is well-established and was set out by Sir Anthony Clarke MR in Jeynes v News Magazines Limited [2008] EWCA Civ 130 [14]:
"(1) The governing principle is reasonableness. (2) The hypothetical reasonable reader is not naïve but he is not unduly suspicious. He can read between the lines. He can read in an implication more readily than a lawyer and may indulge in a certain amount of loose thinking but he must be treated as being a man who is not avid for scandal and someone who does not, and should not, select one bad meaning where other non-defamatory meanings are available. (3) Over-elaborate analysis is best avoided. (4) The intention of the publisher is irrelevant. (5) The article must be read as a whole, and any "bane and antidote" taken together. (6) The hypothetical reader is taken to be representative of those who would read the publication in question. (7) …. (8) It follows that "it is not enough to say that by some person or another the words might be understood in a defamatory sense." Neville v Fine Arts Company [1897] AC 68 per Lord Halsbury LC at 73."
Words are defamatory of a claimant if they (1) substantially affect in an adverse manner the attitude of other people towards the claimant, or have a tendency to do so ( Thornton v Telegraph Media Group Ltd [2010] EWHC 1414 (QB), [2011] 1 WLR 1985, [96]) and (2) their publication has caused or is likely to cause serious harm to the reputation of the claimant (Defamation Act 2013, s 1(1)). These tests are concerned with the tendency and effect of the words only. The belief that words are not defamatory if they are true is a common misconception.
A Defendant may dispute all or any of the matters which the Claimant needs to prove. The Defendant may do so either by positively denying them or by putting the Claimant to proof of them. If, however, these matters are admitted or established the Claimant is entitled to judgment unless the Defendant establishes a substantive defence. A Claimant does not have to prove that the words complained of were untrue.
The substantive defences that could in principle be available in the circumstances of this case are those of truth, honest opinion, and publication on a matter of public interest, that are provided for by ss 2, 3 and 4 of the Defamation Act 2013 respectively. These replaced the common law defences of justification, fair comment, and Reynolds privilege, all of which were abolished by the 2013 Act. The defence of truth is made out by proof that "the imputation conveyed by the statement complained of is substantially true."
A Defendant who wishes to advance any of the defences I have mentioned must specifically plead it. The rules as to what needs to be pleaded by way of defence are set out in the Part 53 Practice Direction. This requires a defence of truth to specify the defamatory meaning the Defendant intends to justify and to give details of the matters relied on in support of that allegation: PD53 2.5. Similar requirements apply to the defence of honest opinion (PD53 2.6). The same in principle is true of the defence of publication on a matter of public interest, though the PD has yet to be updated in this respect; it currently refers to "a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sir Kevin Barron MP and Others v Jane Collins Mep
...should be disposed of at a trial. I therefore entered summary judgment against Mr Vines for damages to be assessed: see my judgment, [2015] EWHC 1161 (QB). On 18 May 2016 I heard argument on the assessment of damages. On 2 June 2016 I awarded £40,000 to each of the claimants, for reasons s......
-
Vladimir Bukovsky v Crown Prosecution Service
...issue rarely contested nowadays, though it may be relevant to some defences of public interest or honest comment (see Barron v Vines [2015] EWHC 1161 (QB) [63]; Economou v de Freitas [2016] EWHC 1853 (QB) [154]–[156]). For present purposes however this principle does provide a valuable remi......
-
Alexander Economou v David De Freitas
...as a new form of qualified privilege. 138 The s 4 defence has been addressed in two previous decisions of mine: Barron v Vines [2015] EWHC 1161 (QB) and Yeo v Times Newspapers Ltd [2015] EWHC 3375 (QB). But the circumstances of Barron v Vines meant there was no detailed consideration of the......
-
Rachel Riley v Laura Murray
...laid down in the European Court of Human Rights.” 108 Mr McCormick has relied upon Warby J's observations in Barron v Vines [2015] EWHC 1161 (QB) as to the importance of not allowing “the law of defamation to stifle political debate”: [45]; and that it is a matter of “high importance to af......
-
Taming the ‘Chilling Effect’ of Defamation Law: English Experience and Implications for Australia
...public functions or activities of the plaintiff.185. SerafinSC(n 131); Economou HC (n 135); Economou CA (n 135); Barron MP v Vines [2015] EWHC 1161 (QB).Gligorijevic 245 wrong turning, the pre-existing Reynolds-free doctrine in Australia, as well as the particular draftingof the Australian......