Your World of Legal Intelligence
 United Kingdom | +44 (0) 20 7284 8080

Wakefield v Channel Four Television Corporation and Others

Judgment Cited authorities 23 Cited in 5 Precedent Map Related
Vincent
JurisdictionEngland & Wales
JudgeTHE HON. MR JUSTICE EADY,The Hon. Mr Justice Eady
Judgment Date21 December 2006
Neutral Citation[2006] EWHC 3289 (QB),[2005] EWHC 2410 (QB)
Docket NumberCase No: HQ05X00900
CourtQueen's Bench Division
Date21 December 2006
Categories

[2005] EWHC 2410 (QB)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION

Before

The Hon. Mr Justice Eady

Case No: HQ05X00900

Between
Andrew Wakefield
Claimant
and
Channel Four Television Corporation Twenty Twenty Productions Ltd Brian Deer
Defendants

Desmond Browne QC and Jonathan Barnes (instructed by Radcliffes LeBrasseur) for the Claimant

Adrienne Page QC and Matthew Nicklin (instructed by Wiggin LLP) for the Defendants

Hearing dates: 27th and 28th October 2005

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.

THE HON. MR JUSTICE EADY The Hon. Mr Justice Eady
1

I now give the reasons for my ruling, which was announced to the parties at the conclusion of the hearing on 27 th and 28 th October 2005, whereby I refused the Claimant's application for a stay of his libel proceedings against Channel Four Television Corporation, Twenty Twenty Productions Limited and Mr Brian Deer. The Claimant, Dr Andrew Wakefield, complains of the content of a programme broadcast in the Dispatches series on Channel Four on 18 th November 2004, which was entitled "MMR [What They Didn't Tell You]".

2

The claim form was issued on 31 st March but only served on 22 nd June 2005. Thereafter, it seems, the particulars of claim were served with some reluctance, following prompting by the Defendants and an order of Master Rose on 27 th July of this year. They eventually appeared on 10 th August. There has thus apparently been a rather relaxed and dilatory approach towards litigation of a kind which is supposed to achieve vindication of reputation. As it was put by Glidewell LJ in Grovit v Doctor, 28 th October 1993 (unreported), CA:

"The purpose of a libel action is to enable the plaintiff to clear his name of the libel, to vindicate his character. In an action for defamation in which the plaintiff wishes to achieve this end, he will also wish the action to be heard as soon as possible".

As Henry LJ observed in Oyston v Blaker [1996] 2 All ER 106, 118, "The essence of a genuine complaint in libel is prompt action".

3

The words complained of consist of very lengthy extracts set out in the particulars of claim from the television programme. For present purposes, I do not think it necessary to replicate them in this judgment. I shall confine myself to identifying the Claimant's meanings, which were to the effect that he had:

"i) Spread fear that the MMR vaccine might lead to autism, even though he knew that his own laboratory had carried out tests whose results dramatically contradicted his claims in that the measles virus had not been found in a single one of the children concerned in his study and he knew or ought to have known that there was absolutely no basis at all for his belief that the MMR should be broken up into single vaccines."

(ii) In spreading such fear, acted dishonestly and for mercenary motives in that, although he improperly failed to disclose the fact, he planned a rival vaccine and products (such as a diagnostic kit based on his theory) that could have made his fortune.

(iii) Gravely abused the children under his care by unethically carrying out extensive invasive procedures (on occasions requiring three people to hold a child down), thereby driving nurses to leave and causing his medical colleagues serious concern and unhappiness.

(iv) Improperly and/or dishonestly failed to disclose to his colleagues and to the public at large that his research on autistic children had begun with a contract with solicitors which were trying to sue the manufacturers of the MMR vaccine.

(v) Improperly and/or dishonestly lent his reputation to the International Child Development Resource Centre which promoted to very vulnerable parents expensive products for whose efficacy (as he knew or should have known) there was no scientific evidence".

4

On 10 th October 2005 a defence running to 95 pages was served which included defences of justification (the Lucas-Box meanings being broadly along the lines of those pleaded on behalf of the Claimant), qualified privilege and fair comment. The allegations are thus very serious indeed and concern matters of considerable legitimate public interest and concern. No reply has yet been served although, given the timescale I have described, that is not altogether surprising since modern pleading practice requires that the Claimant should give a detailed response to the particulars of justification identifying the primary factual allegations which are in dispute and, equally important, those which are not. Clearly, the Claimant will need some time to formulate his reply, although it is fair to say that there can have been very little in the particulars which would have taken him by surprise. Mr Deer's case against him has been publicly available, not only because of the allegations contained in the programme itself, but also because of articles he had written in the Sunday Times in February and November of 2004 and because of the contents of his website. It is also necessary to bear in mind that, if the claim had been prosecuted expeditiously, and in accordance with the time limits prescribed by the CPR, one could expect to have seen the issues crystallised prior to the Long Vacation.

5

Even without a reply having been served, I can reasonably infer that the trial will turn upon fundamentally serious issues going to the heart of the Claimant's honesty and professional integrity. That in itself is a very powerful reason for trying to achieve as early a resolution of the real issues between the parties as is reasonably possible. This aspect of the case should not, however, be confined to considering the interests of the Claimant. It is also important, especially perhaps since the coming into effect of the Human Rights Act 1998 in October 2000, to have regard to the interests and rights of the Defendants. In particular, they have a right under Article 6 of the European Convention to have their case heard fairly, and in public, within a reasonable time. What is reasonable will, of course, turn partly upon the scale and complexity of the issues. Nonetheless, there should clearly be as little delay as possible. In this context, I was reminded by Miss Page QC, on the Defendants' behalf, of the importance of "… defendants not having the anxiety, expense and inconvenience of a defamation action hanging over them for an unnecessarily long period": see e.g. Oyston v Blaker, cited above, at p108, per Henry LJ.

6

There is also a public dimension to be considered, and which has been brought into sharper focus following the implementation of the CPR regime. In a libel context, it was noted by the Court of Appeal in Steedman v BBC [2001] EWCA Civ 1534 that:

"Delay itself, whether or not it is established to have been prejudicial to the defendant, is rightly treated as prejudicial to the administration of justice".

7

It is against this background that Mr Browne QC on Dr Wakefield's behalf has applied for a stay of the litigation until the "final outcome" of proceedings currently pending against his client before the General Medical Council. These proceedings were initiated by "an information letter" of 27 th August 2004; that is to say, prior to the broadcast forming the subject-matter of these proceedings but following upon, and in the light of, Mr Deer's article in The Sunday Times in February 2004 and fairly detailed allegations communicated by him to the GMC thereafter.

8

Before I turn to the issues canvassed before me, I should refer to other libel proceedings commenced by the Claimant. He has also sued Mr Deer in respect of allegations of a similar nature published on his website ("the website proceedings") and, in a further action, he has claimed against Times Newspapers Ltd and Mr Deer in respect of the articles appearing in The Sunday Times. In May of this year an agreement was signed between Times Newspapers Ltd and the Claimant that there should indeed be a stay of those proceedings pending the outcome of the disciplinary process. As a matter of fact, although I am not sure that this is accepted by him, it appears that Mr Deer also consented to that stay. Although formalised in May, the agreement had been reached in February.

9

I am concerned primarily with the action arising out of the television programme but the website proceedings are also before me. Although the Claimant is seeking a stay of those also, his attitude as explained by Mr Browne is that if no stay is granted in respect of the Channel 4 proceedings, then the website proceedings should continue in parallel. That proposition is not accepted by Miss Page, who submitted that it would be unnecessarily expensive, since the outcome of the Channel 4 proceedings will almost certainly determine for all practical purposes that of the website proceedings.

10

There was little difference between the parties (if any) on the legal principles applicable in a situation of this kind. There is discretion for the court to stay proceedings having regard to other parallel proceedings, including for example, disciplinary proceedings before a domestic tribunal, if the justice of the case requires it. There are no presumptions.

11

It also accepted that the burden lies upon the applicant seeking a stay to demonstrate, through cogent evidence, that there are sound reasons for a stay in the circumstances of the particular case.

12

It is clearly necessary to have regard to Article 6 of the European Convention and to the obvious significance of taking any step which impinges upon a litigant's right to have issues determined by a court of competent jurisdiction within a reasonable time.

13

There may well be instances in which it would be right to grant a stay, and the most...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases

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