Thomas Sheridan Against News Group Newspapers Limited

JurisdictionScotland
JudgeLady Paton,Lord McGhie,Lord Drummond Young
Judgment Date19 August 2016
Neutral Citation[2016] CSIH 67
Published date19 August 2016
CourtCourt of Session
Date19 August 2016
Docket NumberA765/04

EXTRA DIVISION, INNER HOUSE, COURT OF SESSION

[2016] CSIH 67

A765/04

Lady Paton

Lord Drummond Young

Lord McGhie

OPINION OF THE COURT

delivered by LADY PATON

in the cause

THOMAS SHERIDAN

Pursuer and respondent;

against

NEWS GROUP NEWSPAPERS LIMITED

Defenders and applicants:

Pursuer and respondent: Party; Dangerfield

Defenders and applicants: A Duncan QC, Richardson; Ledingham Chalmers

19 August 2016

Civil jury trial for damages for defamation

[1] In a civil jury trial in July and August 2006 the pursuer, then a member of the Scottish Parliament and leader of the Scottish Socialist Party (SSP), sought damages for defamation against the defenders. In his summons, the pursuer averred that certain articles in the News of the World in 2004 falsely accused him of inter alia sexual practices involving bondage, spiked heels, and whipping. He averred that the articles falsely accused him of adultery, participating in orgies, and drinking champagne (when he was teetotal). He averred that the articles meant that he was a hypocrite and an abuser of his position as leader of the SSP. He denied all the allegations.

[2] In his defamation action, the issue for the jury was in the following terms:

“Whether the statements in the articles published by the defenders in the ‘News of the World’ on 14th November 2004, 21st November 2004 and 2nd January 2005 falsely and calumniously said that the pursuer committed adultery (with Fiona McGuire, [AK] and other unnamed individuals); that he was a ‘swinger’ and that he participated in orgies; and while he claimed to be teetotal drank champagne; meaning thereby that he was a hypocrite and an abuser of his position of power as a party leader to the loss, injury and damage of the pursuer”.

[3] The defenders pled justification, in that the articles were true, or at least substantially true. They lodged a counter-issue in the following terms:

“Whether it is true that the pursuer committed adultery (with Fiona McGuire, [AK] and other unnamed individuals), that he was a ‘swinger’, that he participated in orgies, that whilst he claimed to be teetotal he drank champagne; meaning thereby that he was a hypocrite and an abuser of his position of power as a party leader.”

Background

[4] The initial article in the News of the World concerned Fiona McGuire (pursuer’s Appendix A1 pages 58 to 62). The article was particularly lurid. A summary of its content and effect is contained in the pursuer’s pleadings as follows:

“2 … On Sunday 14th November 2004, the defenders published a number of articles of and concerning the pursuer in their Scottish Edition. On the front page of the newspaper there was a picture of a Fiona McGuire wearing a towel as well as a picture of the pursuer. The headline stated ‘Scottish Exclusive – My Four IN-A-BED Orgy with Tommy’. The front page also contained sub headlines which stated ‘Ex-escort girl tells how MSP Sheridan cheated on his wife’ and ‘Party boss lusted after married lover in PVC bondage gear’. Thereafter the newspaper devoted pages 2-5 to articles of said nature and of and concerning the pursuer … The sting of the articles was that the pursuer had a four year affair with Fiona McGuire. That their affair involved participating in raunchy group sex sessions and that their affair took place during the currency of his marriage. So far as the pursuer is aware he has never met Fiona McGuire …”

[5] In their answers, the defenders averred inter alia:

“2. … Explained and averred that the News of the World … seeks to publish articles that are of general interest to the ordinary reader, including articles which expose hypocrisy or inappropriate conduct on the part of public figures ... [The defenders then outlined how they had obtained information from Fiona McGuire, and continued] … On 12th November 2004 … [AK] told the newspaper that she had had an affair with the pursuer and that she had visited a swingers club with him. Accordingly, at the time of publication of the articles, the newspaper had been given information from a number of separate sources consistently to the effect that the pursuer had been unfaithful and had visited a swingers club …”

[6] The defenders made further averments about the locations at which the pursuer’s affair with Fiona McGuire was said to have been conducted: for example at the Treetops Hotel, Aberdeen; various locations in Glasgow, Aberdeen, and Dundee; in a car in a lay-by in Dumbarton; at a Travel Lodge, Dundee; at the Thistle Hotel, Aberdeen; at a hotel in Newcastle (where another couple were said to have joined them in a sex session). The defenders further averred that the pursuer had been involved in group sex at the Moat House Hotel, Glasgow.

[7] The pursuer’s denials resulted in further headlines and articles about him in the News of the World.

[8] In his pleadings, the pursuer averred:

“6. The contents of said articles are false and defamatory. They expressly accuse the pursuer of being a ‘love rat’ and that by cheating on his wife with the two named women as well as other unnamed parties. They were written with a view to lowering the pursuer’s reputation in the mind of right thinking members of the public and did so. The articles purported to expose the pursuer as a hypocrite, serial adulterer, and as a ‘swinger’ fond of participating in orgies. The effect of the allegation that he had sex with a party worker was to expose him as an abuser of a position of power. It was well-known amongst members of the party, the press, and the general public that the pursuer was teetotal. By virtue of the allegations made to the effect that the pursuer was a ‘champagne socialist’ the effect of the article was to portray him as a hypocrite. In addition the allegation that the pursuer was a regular user of a prostitute is of itself defamatory …”

[9] The defenders pled inter alia:

“3. The terms of the headlines, sub-headlines and articles complained of being true or at least substantially true, the defenders should be assoilized.”

The civil jury trial in 2006

[10] The civil jury trial began on 4 July 2006. The evidence took twenty days. The defenders employed Sellers Legal Services to record and transcribe the evidence. Their transcript now forms the defenders’ Appendix 2.

[11] The defenders had been ordained to lead at the trial. They led 24 witnesses, including the pursuer. Several of the witnesses, including Fiona McGuire, AK, and KT, gave evidence of having had extra-marital sexual relations with the pursuer, and/or being involved in some way when the pursuer was engaged in extra-marital sexual relations, including group sex. All of those allegations were denied by the pursuer.

[12] The pursuer for his part led 13 witnesses, including his wife Gail Sheridan. In the latter part of the trial he dispensed with counsel and agents, and represented himself.

[13] When the evidence was finished, the jury heard speeches from the pursuer and the defenders’ senior counsel. Lord Turnbull then charged the jury inter alia as follows (defenders’ Appendix 2 Day 22 page 101, 116 et seq, and Day 23 page 30):

“ [page 101] … let us look at the definition of defamation then. ‘Defamation is the communication of a false statement or idea which is defamatory of the pursuer in the sense of harming his or her public character or honour or reputation or of being derogatory or disparaging in the eyes of the reasonable person’. It is sometimes put this way, that the test is whether the words would tend to lower the pursuer in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally …

[page 116 et seq] … Having looked … at what each side needs to establish in terms of the respective onus of proof, can we then look at what the possible outcomes might be? There are a number of possible outcomes, and I am only going to identify one or two of them to try and assist you. But the first outcome might be this: you might be satisfied that Mr Sheridan has made out his case that the News of the World defamed him by [saying] that he drank whilst claiming to be teetotal in the sense they were meaning he was a hypocrite. You might also be satisfied that he was defamed by the claim that he had an affair with a party worker, thereby meaning he abused his position of power. You might also find that the defenders have failed to establish their case that he was a hypocrite, on account of adultery, being a swinger and participating in group sex.

Now if all of this was the case, then obviously Mr Sheridan would have succeeded in doing what he had to, and the defenders would have failed in doing what they had to. If that was the case, then obviously Mr Sheridan would succeed.

Another possible outcome is this: you might find that Mr Sheridan has failed to establish the matters he needs to, and the defenders have successfully demonstrated the truth of all of their allegations, and in this scenario, obviously the defenders would succeed. They would have proved everything they set out to prove and Mr Sheridan would have failed to prove what he set out to prove. And so, each of these two options are quite easy, they are at either ends of the spectrum – but what if you are somewhere in between?

It is in this situation, if you are in between the two, that the terms of the Defamation Act of 1952 would apply. And Mr Jones showed you that on the screen yesterday. Just let me read the terms of that again to you and then discuss them a little. The terms of section 5 of the Defamation Act of 1952 reads as follows:

‘In an action for libel or slander or defamation, in respect of words containing two or more distinct charges against the pursuer, a defence of justification shall not fail by reason only that the truth of every charge is not proved if the words not proved to be true do not materially injure the [pursuer’s] reputation having regard to the truth of the remaining charges.’

Now, let us look at what that means. The section, of course, applies where the words...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Reclaiming Motion By Thomas Sheridan Against News Group Newspapers Limited
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Session
    • 11 Diciembre 2018
    ...from the civil jury; but only in relation to the pursuer committing adultery with KT and attending the “swingers” club. The Extra Division (2017 SC 63) [9] The Extra Division held that, in order to satisfy the test for a new trial under section 29(1) of the 1988 Act, the defenders had to sa......
  • Thomas Sheridan Against News Group Newspapers Limited
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Session
    • 8 Marzo 2018
    ...The defenders’ motion for a new trial was refused by the Inner House in the decision of the court given by Lady Paton on 19 August 2016 ((2016) CSIH 67). In the final hearing before the Inner House the defenders sought to set aside the verdict of the jury on three grounds:  it was essentia......
  • Sheridan v News Group Newspapers Ltd
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Session (Inner House)
    • 11 Diciembre 2018
    ...on 19 August 2016, the Inner House (Lady Paton, Lord Drummond Young and Lord McGhie) refused the motion for a new civil jury trial ([2016] CSIH 67; 2017 SC 63). Following sundry procedure, on 21 August 2017, the pursuer moved for the expenses of the process and on 30 August 2017 moved to ap......
  • Stuart Campbell Against Kezia Dugdale
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Session
    • 27 Mayo 2020
    ...awards where there has been substantial damage to reputation caused by newspaper reports are considerable (Sheridan v News Group Newspapers 2017 SC 63; Winter v News Scotland 1991 SLT 828). Judicial awards have been in a similar range (eg Wray v Associated Newspapers 2000 SLT 869). However,......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT