Tariq Alsaifi v Trinity Mirror Plc & Board of Directors and Another
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Justice Nicklin,The Honourable |
| Judgment Date | 17 November 2017 |
| Neutral Citation | [2017] EWHC 2873 (QB) |
| Docket Number | Case No: HQ17M02602 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division |
| Date | 17 November 2017 |
[2017] EWHC 2873 (QB)
THE HONOURABLE Mr Justice Nicklin
Case No: HQ17M02602
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
MEDIA & COMMUNICATIONS LIST
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
The Claimant appeared in person
John Stables (instructed by Foot Anstey LLP) for the First Defendant
Christina Michalos (instructed by the Government Legal Department) for the Second Defendant
Hearing date: 13 October 2017
Judgment Approved
This is a libel action brought by Mr Alsaifi concerning the publication of an article in July 2016 in The Chronicle, a local newspaper that circulates principally in Newcastle-upon-Tyne and Gateshead. Mr Alsaifi complains about the publication of an article about him in the print edition of the newspaper and also a similar article that appeared online on the newspaper's website, chroniclelive.co.uk ("the Website").
The issues that require determination by the Court are applications (1) by the Claimant for a ruling on meaning and summary judgment; (2) by the First Defendant to strike out or summarily to dismiss Mr Alsaifi's claim; and (3) by the Second Defendant to dismiss the claim on the grounds (a) the words complained of are not defamatory of him and/or Mr Alsaifi has no real prospect of satisfying the serious harm requirements of s.1 Defamation Act 2013; and/or (b) the claim was an abuse of process under the principles identified in Jameel v Dow Jones and Co Inc [2005] QB 946.
The articles complained of
I need to set out both articles, because the online version was different from and longer than the print version.
The online version of the article appeared during the evening of 6 July 2016 and was in the following terms (with paragraph numbers added):
Ex-N ewcastleCollege lecturer who made 'sexual' advances on student allowed back in the classroom
[1] The 'cavalier' actions of the Secretary of State for Education have allowed the former NewcastleCollege tutor to successfully appeal his ban
[2] A lecturer who made 'sexual' advances on a pupil has had a lifetime teaching ban overturned — on a legal technicality.
[3] Tariq Alsaifi was suspended from NewcastleCollege in 2013 when a number of accusations emerged around his behaviour towards a particular pupil.
[4] Alsaifi, 41, was observed holding and rubbing the hand of a teenage student — who he also invited to lunch and sent several emails to from his personal account.
[5] The actions left the teen 'upset' and feeling uncomfortable at being in the same room as Alsaifi, who was 38 at the time.
[6] A disciplinary panel concluded earlier this year that, while there was no evidence of 'serious sexual misconduct', the teacher's actions were wholly inappropriate and banned him from the classroom.
[7] However, the decision has now been quashed on appeal.
[8] A High Court Judge ruled that under current legislation the victim could not be classed as a pupil, as she only studied part time.
[9] Therefore the panel had no jurisdiction to review the case or make any decision in the first place.
[10] The Honourable Mrs Justice Andrews DBE accepted the panel's findings in relation to Alsaifi's conduct, but ruled his ban should be nullified.
[11] Justice Andrews said: 'I am satisfied that there is no substance in any of the grounds of appeal raised by the appellant apart from the legal point he has taken objecting to the power of the National College for Teaching and Leadership (NCTL) to carry out the investigation and to the power of the Secretary of State to make the order.
[12] He only needs to succeed on one ground in order to succeed in his appeal. As the Secretary of State had no power to investigate the matter, the fact that process adopted was conspicuously fair and the fact that if the NCTL had been empowered to refer the matter to the panel, its findings would have been unimpeachable, are of no consequence.
[13] The proceedings were a nullity; the panel had no power make any findings about the appellant's conduct, or to recommend a Prohibition Order in this case, and the Secretary of State had no power to make one.'
[14] Justice Andrews reserved particular criticism for the Secretary of State who she said had behaved in a 'cavalier' way.
[15] Justice Andrews said: 'The court's disapprobation of the Secretary of State's cavalier attitude to the rules of civil procedure, particularly in a case where the opposing party is representing himself, needs to be marked in a way that will discourage repetition. I will therefore direct that the Secretary of State shall bear her own costs of the appeal to this Court in any event, irrespective of the outcome of any further appeal'
[16] An NCTL spokesperson said: 'We are disappointed with the High Court's judgment. Nothing is more important than the safety and welfare of children and that is why we insist on the highest possible standards of personal and professional conduct from all teachers and school staff.
[17] We are confident that the policy and procedures in place to regulate the teaching profession are robust and ensure the just and efficient handling of all cases of teacher misconduct. Each case referred to a Professional Conduct Panel is considered in line with the legislation and supporting advice and the circumstances surrounding each individual case.'
In the print edition the following day, 7 July 2016, the article appeared on page 15 of the newspaper in the following terms (again with paragraph numbers added):
Lecturer has ban quashed
[1] A lecturer who made 'sexual' advances on a pupil has had a lifetime teaching ban overturned on a legal technicality.
[2] Tariq Alsaifi was suspended from NewcastleCollege in 2013 when a number of accusations emerged around his behaviour towards a pupil.
[3] Alsaifi, 41, was observed holding and rubbing the hand of a teenage student – who he also invited to lunch and sent several emails to from his personal account.
[4] A disciplinary panel concluded that, while there was no evidence of 'serious sexual misconduct', the teacher's actions were wholly inappropriate and banned him from the classroom.
[5] However, the decision has now been quashed on appeal. A High Court judge ruled that under current legislation the victim could not be classed as a pupil, as she only studied part time.
[6] Therefore the panel had no jurisdiction to review the case or make any decision in the first place.
[7] The Honourable Mrs Justice Andrews DBE said: 'I am satisfied that there is no substance in any of the grounds of appeal raised by the appellant apart from the legal point he has taken objecting to the power of the National College for Teaching and Leadership (NCTL) to carry out the investigation and to the power of the Secretary of State to make the order.
[8] He only needs to succeed on one ground in order to succeed in his appeal.
[9] As the Secretary of State had no power to investigate the matter, the fact that process adopted was conspicuously fair and the fact that if the NCTL had been empowered to refer the matter to the panel, its findings would have been unimpeachable, are of no consequence.'
[10] An NCTL spokesperson said it was disappointed with the High Court's judgment.
For reasons that will become clear later in this judgment, I am going to refer to the 6/7 July 2016 articles (together) as "the Second Article".
The Claim
Mr Alsaifi commenced proceedings over the Second Article by requesting the issue of a Claim Form on 4 July 2017. The Claim Form was actually issued on and dated 21 July 2017, but it is the date of request that is material for limitation purposes (see CPR Part 7 PD7A §5.1).
In his Particulars of Claim, Mr Alsaifi complained about the publication of both the online and print versions of the Second Article. He has chosen particular words for complaint, but the whole of the online article is set out in the Particulars of Claim. The meaning that Mr Alsaifi contends the words bear, in their natural and ordinary meaning, is:
"… that in the Claimant's capacity as a teacher of a teenage girl/a pupil he behaved inappropriately towards her by making sexual advances; that these involved holding and rubbing her hand, inviting her to lunch, and sending her several emails from his personal account; his conduct and actions made the teenage girl upset within the classroom and feeling uncomfortable at being in the same room; he thereby conducted himself in a way that merited his indefinite prohibition from teaching; the Claimant's inappropriate actions towards the teenage girl/pupil made her a victim; the Claimant's success in his appeal is a disappointing one because he might not meet the required standards by NCTL toward the safety and welfare of children."
An innuendo meaning is pleaded, but that is not material for present purposes. Mr Alsaifi does not attribute a separate meaning to the print edition of the Second Article. I will need to return to that. Sensibly, neither Defendant has taken any point on that technicality; it is clear from the Particulars of Claim that Mr Alsaifi is complaining of both versions of the Second Article.
Neither Defendant has served a defence.
History and background
Having set out the nature of the current proceedings, I need to set out some further background as there are several events which are important.
Previous litigation
As appears from the Second Article, Mr Alsaifi was made the subject of a lifetime ban from teaching following a decision made by the National College for Teaching and Leadership ("NCTL").
Mr Alsaifi has brought three earlier claims in relation to this decision and the reporting of it (and subsequent court proceedings in relation to it). In the order in which they were...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dr Craig Steven Wright v Magnus Granath
...findings adverse to a claimant are admissible, see for example the observations of Nicklin J in Alsaifi v Trinity Mirror and another [2017] EWHC 2873 (QB) at 85 I am doubtful that a finding of civil contempt from another jurisdiction would be admissible as evidence of general bad reputatio......
-
Tariq Alsaifi v Trinity Mirror Plc and Board of Directors
...true. 17 In respect of his argument in relation to honest opinion, the Claimant relied upon and referred to my decision in Alsaifi v Trinity Mirror plc & Another [2017] EWHC 2873 (QB) ( Alsaifi v Trinity Mirror (No. 2)). There, I had dealt with an application for summary judgment in a simil......
-
Dhir v Saddler
...be adduced to persuade the Court not to draw the inference is likely to reflect the reality in many cases. As I noted in Alsaifi v Trinity Mirror plc [2017] EWHC 2873 (QB) [95(iii)]: " In mass media cases (where it is unlikely that the readers can be identified) it is almost impossible to a......
-
Michael Ward v Associated Newspapers Ltd
...of the Supreme Court in Lachaux v Independent Print Ltd [2020] AC 612. I also derive assistance from Alsaifi v Trinity Mirror plc [2017] EWHC 2873 (QB) [84]–[95], with necessary modification following the Supreme Court's decision in 35 In his witness statement, Mr Mathieson states that the......