The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis v The Serious Organised Crime Agency and Another
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Justice Tugendhat |
| Judgment Date | 18 April 2011 |
| Neutral Citation | [2011] EWHC 776 (QB) |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division |
| Date | 18 April 2011 |
| Docket Number | Case No: HQ11X00308 |
[2011] EWHC 776 (QB)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
The Honourable Mr Justice Tugendhat
Case No: HQ11X00308
William McCormick QC (instructed by MPS SOCA) for the Claimants
Gavin Millar QC & Anthony Hudson (instructed by Simons Muirhead and Burton) for the First Defendant
Hearing dates: 22 March 2011
David Hunt has sued the First Defendant ("TNL") for libel in respect of an article published in the Sunday Times dated 23 May 2010 ("the article"). In his Particulars of Claim dated 8 July 2010 he claims that the article meant:
"1. that [he] is a "crime lord" who controls a vast criminal network involved in murder, drug trafficking and fraud;
2. that when [he] was prosecuted in 1999 he was responsible for a violent assault on the main witness against him and the intimidation of that witness's family;
3. that in order to obtain a financial benefit from the sale of land to the London Development Agency [he] attacked and threatened to kill a property developer at a court hearing and avoided prosecution for his attacks and threats by intimidating witnesses".
On 30 September 2010 TNL served its Defence. It raised defences of truth, including to the meanings complained of by Mr Hunt, and Reynolds Public Interest Privilege. TNL pleads that he is a violent and dangerous criminal and the head of an organised crime group ("OCG") involved in murder, drug trafficking and fraud. In the alternative it pleads lesser meanings which it states to be true. On 4 November 2010 Mr Hunt applied to strike out large parts of the defence of justification, but not the Reynolds defence.
On 30 November TNL applied for non party disclosure orders against the MPS, SOCA, Essex Police and HMRC ("the law enforcement agencies"), seeking documents in support of its defence of justification in Mr Hunt's libel action. The little that Mr Hunt has been told about that application appears from the witness statements of Ms Sarma of TNL dated 25 February 2011 and of Mr Jenkins for Mr Hunt dated 16 March 2011.
At a hearing on 2 December 2010 I struck out most of the Particulars of Justification pleaded by TNL, while giving permission to apply to amend to re-plead justification. Mr Millar for TNL stated that TNL wished to have an opportunity to re-consider the pleading both of the defence of justification and of the Reynolds defence, by, in particular pleading further details in relation to the sources of the information relied on.
There are passages in the words complained of which refer to "police sources" or to information which the writer, Mr Gillard, appeared to have obtained from police sources. The particulars of the Reynolds defence make a number of references to "authoritative police sources" for example in para 9.13 it is pleaded:
"Numerous police sources, … identified Mr Hunt to Mr Gillard as a well known East London organised crime boss implicated since the 1980's in murder, drug trafficking and fraud. The information received from the different police sources was entirely consistent in this regard and there was therefore verification of this information from a number of authoritative sources."
At the end of the article there is a reference to the trial of a Mr Charles Matthews Junior. It is stated that that had been abandoned when he made allegations that three police officers in the case were in a corrupt relationship with Mr Allen, who is also mentioned in the article. The article reports that the officers were exonerated following an inquiry.
The article concludes by saying Mr Hunt declined to comment. In the particulars in support of the Reynolds defence it is pleaded that on 21 May 2010 Mr Gillard had spoken to Mr Hunt's solicitor, a Mr Ewing, offering Mr Hunt an opportunity to comment, but Mr Hunt did not avail himself of this opportunity.
Those advising TNL prepared a draft Amended Defence with a view to applying for permission to amend. Before doing that, they provided a copy to the law enforcement agencies, together with a number of documents which TNL intended to rely upon in support of its applications for non party disclosure.
On 26 January 2011 TNL gave the law enforcement agencies notice of its intention to serve Mr Hunt with the draft Amended Defence the following day. On 27 January 2011 at a hearing held in private, MPS and SOCA applied to me for an interim injunction to prohibit TNL from doing this. In a public order I recorded that I accepted undertakings from TNL and Mr Gillard to keep documents containing confidential information secure and made an order restraining TNL and Mr Gillard, until trial of the injunction proceedings, from using the confidential material in Mr Hunt's libel action (including by referring to that material in any draft amended defence).
On 28 January 2011 MPS and SOCA issued a claim form against TNL and Mr Gillard. The court file in those proceedings ("the injunction proceedings") has been sealed. It also served a Defence in the injunction proceedings on 7 March 2011.
It is against that background that the following applications came to be before the court on 22 March in the libel action: (1) On 23 February 2011 Mr Hunt applied for further directions in his libel action, and in particular for an order that TNL serve its amended Defence within seven days; (2) On 25 February 2011 TNL applied for an order that Mr Hunt's claim be "stayed generally" or until the conclusion of the claim brought against it by MPS and SOCA in the injunction proceedings. On the same day there was also listed (3) an application in the injunction proceedings by TNL and Mr Gillard to vary the order I had made on 27 January 2011 so as to allow TNL to defend the libel action by unrestricted use of the confidential information referred to in that material.
The basis of Mr Hunt's application, as advanced by Mr Tomlinson, was that Mr Hunt is being deprived of his rights, under Article 6 and the common law, to access to the court and to a fair trial within a reasonable time. However, although his application was for directions, which he wishes to be made quickly, Mr Tomlinson submitted that TNL's application for a stay should not be heard by me. The reason he gave is a powerful one, as I indicated at the hearing. It is that I have heard and seen things in the injunction proceedings which Mr Hunt has not seen, and which the law enforcement agencies object to being disclosed to Mr Hunt. Mr McCormick submitted that I should hear TNL's application in the libel action before its application in the injunction proceedings. I decided that I should hear TNL's application in the injunction proceedings first. I adjourned Mr Hunt's application. It is to be refixed before another judge, unless this court is asked to, and does, rule otherwise. It is likely to be heard on the same occasion as TNL's application for a stay of the libel action.
I then sat in private to hear the application of TNL and Mr Gillard in the injunction proceedings. There is little that can be said about the details of that case in this open judgment. However, an outline of the issues has already been given to Mr Hunt in the skeleton argument of TNL produced in relation to Mr Hunt's application.
It is not only Mr Hunt who relies on Art 6. TNL also relies on its rights, under Article 6 and the common law, to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis and Another v Times Newspapers Ltd and Another
...proceedings. On 22 March 2011 and 18 April 2011 I heard and refused an application by the Defendants to vary the interim injunction ( [2011] EWHC 776 (QB)). On 15 and 21 June 2011 I heard and (as to some parts) refused applications in this action, including an application by the Defendants......