vjohn82's Libel Case

[vjohn82]

I hope to be in a position to write a little on the case soon.

But, in summary...

The case was struck out. 60 pages of allegations and argument was narrowed down, by a Master of the Court, to 16 pages. This was then narrowed down to 4 or 5 sentences which the Judge found 'could' be libellous but for which I had available defences to.

The Judge decided it was not worth a trial to hear the case and asked that, in light of this, whether I would be willing to agree not to repeat those sentences (or the meaning implied) in the future to bring an end to the case.

I have, at this stage, agreed to do so to bring an end to the proceedings. It was not worth increasing costs, time and stress if it could be brought to a quicker conclusion. I have a wife and two young children who need a husband and Father around the place.

Considering 95% of the case was struck out, there is no question that this is a victory on a number of levels which I will explain in due course. For example, the Judge ruled is not defamatory to call someone a Creationist. For those who debate religion and atheism this is quite an important finding by the High Court.

The claimant now has to pay £75,000 in costs (within 3 months), was denied permission to appeal and denied an attempt to have me committed to prison for "contempt of court".

The Claimant stated his intention to file a written application for permission to appeal.

[pdx2259]

Re: vjohn82's Libel Case

Could someone who reports suspicious activity to the police, be found guilty of libel should those suspicions later turn out to be unfounded?

How do you report anything to the Police without risk of facing a libel or defamation claim?

[vjohn82]

Re: vjohn82's Libel Case

Could someone who reports suspicious activity to the police, be found guilty of libel should those suspicions later turn out to be unfounded?

How do you report anything to the Police without risk of facing a libel or defamation claim?

No. Complaints to the police are covered by some sort of privilege. But if you continually make complaints the person could ask the Police to investigate and then perhaps the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 might come into play?

[pdx2259]

Re: vjohn82's Libel Case

The privilege makes sense.

Suppose you have information that you sincerely believe warrants closer investigation. You make two attempts to report it to the Police. The Police dismiss the matter as civil without studying your information.

Where then is this privilege to be found, and to whom do you give this information?

[vjohn82]

Re: vjohn82's Libel Case

The privilege makes sense.

Suppose you have information that you sincerely believe warrants closer investigation. You make two attempts to report it to the Police. The Police dismiss the matter as civil without studying your information.

Where then is this privilege to be found, and to whom do you give this information?

It can be found in case law:

Westcott v Westcott {[2008] EWCA Civ 818}

This case was decided by the Court of Appeal. It concerns absolute privilege. A defence of privilege allows the defendant to evade the ordinary rule of English law that a defamatory statement of fact can only be defended if it is true. It is based on the consideration that there are circumstances in which the public interest dictates that a statement should be protected regardless of whether it is true or false. Mr Richard Westcott was a magistrate in Worcestershire. He tried to sue his former daughter-in-law, Dr Sarah Westcott, for slander and libel over allegations that he assaulted her and his baby grandson. The High Court rejected his claim, saying her oral and written complaints to the police were protected by absolute privilege. Mr Westcott appealed, but the appeal court upheld the original judgment. The incident occurred after a heated family argument. His daughter-in-law had telephoned the police and claimed that her father-in-law, had assaulted her and her baby. She confirmed those allegations in a written statement. The police did not consider that the complaint warranted further action, and Mr Westcott sued his daughter-in-law for defamation. The judge, on a preliminary issue, made the decision challenged. Mr Westcott argued that neither the oral complaint nor the written statement should be treated as part of the police’s investigation but rather as steps taken to instigate that investigation, so that neither enjoyed the protection of absolute privilege.

Surprisingly, the Court of Appeal gave judgment in favour of the daughter-in-law. It held that both the oral complaint and the written statement were protected by absolute privilege. The Court of Appeal relied heavily on the House of Lords precedent set by Taylor v Director of the Serious Fraud Office {[1999] 2 AC 177 HL}. Taylor established that immunity for out-of-court statements was not confined to persons who were subsequently called as witnesses. The policy of the law was clearly to enable people to speak freely, without inhibition and without fear of being sued. The person in question had to know at the time he spoke whether or not the immunity would attach. As society expected that criminal activity would be reported and, when reported, investigated and, when appropriate, prosecuted, all those who participated in a criminal investigation were entitled to the benefit of absolute privilege in respect of statements they made. That applied whether they were informants, investigators or prosecutors. As to the argument that the immunity could be abused, the House of Lords considered the case of D v National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children {[1978] AC 171 HL} where the alleged defamer had been a malicious informer. It stated that although the immunity could be abused, the balance of public interest lay in generally respecting it. Thus the question was whether the oral and written statements could each be fairly said to be part of the process of investigating a crime or a possible crime with a view to a prosecution or possible prosecution in respect of the matter being investigated. The police could not investigate a possible crime without the alleged criminal activity coming to their notice. Making an oral complaint was the first step in that process. In order to have confidence that protection would be afforded, the potential complainant had to know in advance of making an approach to the police that his complaint would be immune from a direct or flank attack. There was no logic in conferring immunity at the end of the process but not from its very beginning, and Mr Westcott’s distinction between instigation and investigation was flawed accordingly. Any inhibition on the freedom to complain would seriously erode the rigours of the criminal justice system and would be contrary to the public interest. Immunity had to be given from the earliest moment that the criminal justice system became involved.

The implications of this judgment are quite significant. Anyone reporting an alleged crime to police cannot now be sued for defamation by the person they accuse from the moment they make the complaint. Previously it was thought that absolute privilege only protected a complainant from a defamation claim once the police had begun to investigate an allegation and not at the time of the initial complaint. It may be that Dr Sarah Westcott was entirely justified in her complaint. But there will be other complainants who will be dishonest and malicious. The House of Lords was aware that there are two other safeguards against malicious infomers who seek to abuse this absolute privilege: first, the most serious damage to reputation only occurs once the investigation and prosecution commence; and second, malicious informers can be prosecuted for perverting the course of justice. Both of these safeguards depend upon the police, but the police will naturally be hostile to anyone seeking to waste their time. Therefore, while malicious informers can abuse this absolute privilege, they risk being prosecuted themselves, and it is unlikely that any significant damage to reputation would actually occur.

[pdx2259]

Re: vjohn82's Libel Case

Wow. Thank you very much for that.

That relates to the first part, but to whom then do you give the information?

[vjohn82]

Re: vjohn82's Libel Case

Well if the matter is civil then you need to seek civil redress.

[pdx2259]

Re: vjohn82's Libel Case

and if it's criminal, or the standard of proof is high?

[vjohn82]

Re: vjohn82's Libel Case

and if it's criminal, or the standard of proof is high?

Well you would have to convince the police it is criminal.

[pdx2259]

Re: vjohn82's Libel Case

Do you know if a matter reported to the police automatically goes to the CPS for consideration?

[vjohn82]

Re: vjohn82's Libel Case

Do you know if a matter reported to the police automatically goes to the CPS for consideration?

No, the police decide if it goes forward to them usually.

[pdx2259]

Re: vjohn82's Libel Case

This is the dilemma John.

Can you send information direct to the CPS?

[vjohn82]

Re: vjohn82's Libel Case

Reporting a Crime: Victims and Witnesses: The Crown Prosecution Service

[pdx2259]

Re: vjohn82's Libel Case

Thanks.

& best of luck with your case.

[vjohn82]

Re: vjohn82's Libel Case

Thanks.

& best of luck with your case.

I won