Stuart Campbell Against Kezia Dugdale
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judge | Sheriff K.J. McGowan |
| Neutral Citation | [2018] SC EDIN 49 |
| Court | Sheriff Court |
| Date | 17 August 2018 |
| Docket Number | EDI/A409/17 |
| Published date | 05 September 2018 |
SHERIFFDOM OF LOTHIAN AND BORDERS AT EDINBURGH
[2018] SC EDIN 49
EDI/A409/17
JUDGMENT OF SHERIFF KENNETH J McGOWAN
in the cause
STUART CAMPBELL
Pursuer
against
KEZIA DUGDALE
Defender
Pursuer: Sandison QC, Pugh; Halliday Campbell
Defender: O’Neill QC, Hamilton; Balfour + Manson LLP
Edinburgh, 17 August 2018
The Sheriff, having resumed consideration of the cause, allows parties, before answer, a
proof on their respective averments; reserves meantime all questions of expenses.
NOTE
Introduction
[1] The pursuer writes and publishes blogs on matters pertaining to politics. He
published an item on his Twitter account (“the Tweet”) critical of a politician’s public
speaking ability, referencing the sexual orientation of the politician’s father, who is
homosexual. The defender, herself (then) a politician, wrote an article (“the article”) in a
national newspaper, criticising the Tweet. The pursuer sues the defender for damages for
defamation.
2
[2] As this case has already attracted some commentary in the media and elsewhere, it is
perhaps useful if I explain the nature of the hearing which took place before me.
Defamation defined
[3] Defamation occurs when a person (‘person A’) communicates a false statement or
idea about another person (‘person B’) which tends to lower the reputation of person B in
the eyes of right thinking members of society generally.
[4] Communication of the defamatory idea can be by spoken or written word or by
other means e.g. a cartoon.
The communications in this case
[5] On 3 March 2017, during the Conservative Party conference, the pursuer published
the following Tweet:
“Oliver Mundell is the sort of public speaker that makes you wish his dad had
embraced his homosexuality sooner”.
[6] On 7 March 2017, the following article, written by the defender, was published in the
Daily Record:
“Twitter tirade highlights divisions
I was shocked and appalled to see a pro-independence blogger’s homophobic tweets
during the Tory conference.
Abuse and discrimination should have no part in our politics.
But the Twitter tirade against David Mundell and his son Oliver is sadly
symptomatic of our divided politics.
People are welcome to disagree and challenge - indeed, it is healthy that we do so.
But it is utterly unacceptable for someone to face abuse because of their sexuality, or
indeed race or religion.
Such comments are, of course, not unique to the man who tweets as Wings Over
Scotland.
But it is depressing and disheartening that there are SNP politicians who promote his
work.
3
As politicians, we have a responsibility to lead from the front and call out abuse for
what it is – unacceptable. No elected member of any party should be endorsing
someone who spouts hatred and homophobia towards others.
It runs entirely counter to the sort of progressive, welcoming country we all want
Scotland to be.
I hope Wings Over Scotland – and the SNP politicians who share his work – will
reflect on what was said and recognise it as unacceptable.
We are divided enough.
Scottish Labour believed together we’re stronger.”
The focus of the dispute
[7] The focus in this case is on the words used by the defender. References to other
matters are contextual. The pursuer’s Tweet, while part of that context, is not the statement
which is said to be defamatory.
[8] The court is not concerned with evaluating or seeking to judge matters such as taste,
humour, politics or political views, but instead with the legal requirements of a case of
defamation.
The nature of the hearing before me
[9] The hearing before me was not concerned with hearing or weighing evidence or
evaluating the truth of either party’s case. The case came before me for a legal debate on the
pleadings, to decide whether the action should be allowed to go forward, in whole or in
part, to an evidential hearing.
Summary of decision
Were the words used by the defender defamatory?
[10] As I have set out more fully below, I have not decided that the defender defamed the
pursuer. I have decided that as a matter of law, the words used by the defender in the article
To continue reading
Request your trial