Bent Coppers

Last updated

Bent Coppers
Bent Coppers cover.png
Cover of the first edition
Author Graeme McLagan
LanguageEnglish
SubjectCorruption within the Metropolitan Police
Genre Non-fiction
Publisher Orion Publishing Group
Publication date
2003
Publication placeUnited Kingdom
Media typePrint (hardcover and paperback)
Pages
  • 265 (first edition)
  • 480 (revised 2007 edition)
ISBN 9780297830931
OCLC 936505407

Bent Coppers: The Inside Story of Scotland Yard's Battle Against Police Corruption is a non-fiction book by award-winning British journalist Graeme McLagan. First published in the United Kingdom in 2003 by Orion Publishing Group, the book examines police corruption within the Metropolitan Police Service and South Eastern Regional Crime Squad—with particular focus on the 1990s and early 2000s—and the establishment and activities of the force's anti-corruption "Ghost Squad". [1] Its publication led to a 4-year legal case resulting in a landmark ruling in English defamation law. [2] [3]

Libel case

Following publication, McLagan and Orion were sued for libel by Michael Charman, a former detective constable with the Flying Squad who had been "required to resign" from the Metropolitan Police for "discreditable conduct". [4] [5] Charman alleged that the book libelled him by "suggesting that there were 'cogent grounds' of suspecting him of being involved in corruption." In seeking to have Charman's claim for damages dismissed, the author and publisher cited the "Reynolds defence" of qualified privilege, which protected publication of an allegation if it was made in the public interest and satisfied the test of responsible journalism. [6] [7]

In June 2006, at the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Mr Justice Grey ruled that the book "did not pass all the necessary tests of "responsible journalism" and was not entitled to protection" of qualified privilege. [5] [7] Following the reaffirmation of the Reynolds defence in Jameel v Wall Street Journal Europe Sprl in October 2006, in which the Law Lords sitting in the House of Lords determined that libel judges in the lower courts had been interpreting the criteria too strictly, McLagan and Orion appealed their case. [5] [8] On 11 October 2007, Lord Justice Ward, Lord Justice Sedley and Lord Justice Hooper, sitting in the Court of Appeal of England and Wales, allowed the appeal and dismissed Charman's claim for damages—the first time that the Reynolds defence had succeeded in the publication of a book. [9]

In their ruling, the judges said they were satisfied that the book was a piece of responsible journalism, that McLagan had taken steps to verify the story and that "as a result of his honesty, his expertise on the subject, his careful research and his painstaking evaluation of a mass of material, the book was protected." [3] Caroline Kean, McLagan's solicitor, called the ruling "ground-breaking and momentous", and said: "This is an unambiguous confirmation by the Court of Appeal that Reynolds is alive and kicking. It is not limited to newspapers, it means all media and there is no time constraint. It applies equally to a book and, by analogy, it will apply to a film or a TV programme, providing it is something of proper public interest and a journalist has done his very best to act in the course of responsible journalism." [3]

The Reynolds defence was replaced under the Defamation Act 2013 with the statutory defence of publication on a matter of public interest. [10]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Defamation</span> Any communication that can injure a third partys reputation

Defamation is a communication that injures a third party's reputation and causes a legally redressable injury. The precise legal definition of defamation varies from country to country. It is not necessarily restricted to making assertions that are falsifiable, and can extend to concepts that are more abstract than reputation – like dignity and honour. In the English-speaking world, the law of defamation traditionally distinguishes between libel and slander. It is treated as a civil wrong, as a criminal offence, or both.

McDonald's Corporation v Steel & Morris[1997] EWHC 366 (QB), known as "the McLibel case", was an English lawsuit for libel filed by McDonald's Corporation against environmental activists Helen Steel and David Morris over a factsheet critical of the company. Each of two hearings in English courts found some of the leaflet's contested claims to be libellous and others to be true.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Birmingham Six</span> Irishmen falsely convicted for the Birmingham pub bombings

The Birmingham Six were six Northern Irishmen who were each sentenced to life imprisonment in 1975 following their false convictions for the 1974 Birmingham pub bombings. Their convictions were declared unsafe and unsatisfactory and quashed by the Court of Appeal on 14 March 1991. The six men were later awarded financial compensation ranging from £840,000 to £1.2 million.

New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964), was a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision ruling that the freedom of speech protections in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution restrict the ability of public officials to sue for defamation. The decision held that if a plaintiff in a defamation lawsuit is a public official or candidate for public office, then not only must they prove the normal elements of defamation—publication of a false defamatory statement to a third party—they must also prove that the statement was made with "actual malice", meaning the defendant either knew the statement was false or recklessly disregarded whether it might be false. New York Times Co. v. Sullivan is frequently ranked as one of the greatest Supreme Court decisions of the modern era.

Near v. Minnesota, 283 U.S. 697 (1931), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court under which prior restraint on publication was found to violate freedom of the press as protected under the First Amendment. This principle was applied to free speech generally in subsequent jurisprudence. The Court ruled that a Minnesota law that targeted publishers of "malicious" or "scandalous" newspapers violated the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Legal scholar and columnist Anthony Lewis called Near the Court's "first great press case".

Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323 (1974), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court establishing the standard of First Amendment protection against defamation claims brought by private individuals. The Court held that, so long as they do not impose liability without fault, states are free to establish their own standards of liability for defamatory statements made about private individuals. However, the Court also ruled that if the state standard is lower than actual malice, the standard applying to public figures, then only actual damages may be awarded.

Free Dominion was a Canadian conservative internet forum. The site used the phrase "Principled Conservativism" to describe its ideology.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Ali Dizaei</span> London police officer

Jamshid Ali Dizaei is a former Commander in London's Metropolitan Police Service, Iranian-born with dual nationality, and formerly one of Britain's more senior Muslim police officers. Dizaei came to prominence as a result of his outspoken views on racial discrimination in the London Metropolitan Police and various allegations of malpractice on his part. He had received advancement after his criticism of the force following his claims of racism. He was a frequent media commentator on a variety of issues, mainly concerned with ethnicity and religion. In April 2008, he was promoted to Commander, responsible for West London.

Libel tourism is a term, first coined by Geoffrey Robertson, to describe forum shopping for libel suits. It particularly refers to the practice of pursuing a case in England and Wales, in preference to other jurisdictions, such as the United States, which provide more extensive defenses for those accused of making derogatory statements.

Sir David Eady is a retired High Court judge in England and Wales. As a judge, he is known for having presided over many high-profile libel and privacy cases.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Carole Cadwalladr</span> British investigative journalist (born 1969)

Carole Jane Cadwalladr is a British author, investigative journalist, and features writer. She is a features writer for The Observer and formerly worked at The Daily Telegraph. Cadwalladr rose to international prominence in 2018 for her role in exposing the Facebook–Cambridge Analytica data scandal, for which she was a finalist for the 2019 Pulitzer Prize for National Reporting, alongside The New York Times reporters.

Neutral reportage is a common law defense against libel and defamation lawsuits usually involving the media republishing unproven accusations about public figures. It is a limited exception to the common law rule that one who repeats a defamatory statement is just as guilty as the first person who published it.

Modern libel and slander laws in many countries are originally descended from English defamation law. The history of defamation law in England is somewhat obscure; civil actions for damages seem to have been relatively frequent as far back as the Statute of Gloucester in the reign of Edward I (1272–1307). The law of libel emerged during the reign of James I (1603–1625) under Attorney General Edward Coke who started a series of libel prosecutions. Scholars frequently attribute strict English defamation law to James I's outlawing of duelling. From that time, both the criminal and civil remedies have been found in full operation.

Media Defence is a non-governmental organization established in 2008 to provide legal assistance to journalists, citizen journalists and independent media institutions. It also supports training in media law and promotes the exchange of information, litigation tools and strategies for lawyers working on media freedom cases. It is based in London, England and has a global network of media lawyers and media freedom activists with whom it works on cases and projects.

<i>Grant v Torstar Corp</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Grant v Torstar Corp, [2009] 3 S.C.R. 640, 2009 SCC 61, is a 2009 Supreme Court of Canada decision on the defences to the tort of defamation. The Supreme Court ruled that the law of defamation should give way to the rights of a party to speak on matters of public interest, provided the party exercises a certain level of responsibility in verifying the potentially defamatory facts. This decision recognizes a defence of responsible communication on matters of public interest.

Sir Michael George Tugendhat, styled The Hon. Mr Justice Tugendhat, and referred to as Tugendhat J in legal writing, is a retired High Court judge in England and Wales. He was the High Court's senior media judge, taking over that role from Mr Justice Eady on 1 October 2010.

Astley v Verdun, 2011 ONSC 3651, is a leading defamation decision released by Ontario Superior Court of Justice. The case was publicized for the amount of damages awarded to the plaintiff, and the permanent injunction ordered against the defendant.

British Chiropractic Association (BCA) v Singh was an influential libel action in England and Wales, widely credited as a catalytic event in the libel reform campaign which saw all parties at the 2010 general election making manifesto commitments to libel reform, and passage of the Defamation Act 2013 by the British Parliament in April 2013.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Defamation Act 2013</span> United Kingdom law reforming defamation law in England & Wales

The Defamation Act 2013 is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, which changed English defamation law on issues of the right to freedom of expression and the protection of reputation. It also comprised a response to perceptions that the law as it stood was giving rise to libel tourism and other inappropriate claims.

Graeme McLagan is a British journalist who was Home Affairs correspondent for BBC News, specialising in crime and the police about which he has written three books.

References

  1. Palmer, Alasdair (2 July 2003). "When cops are robbers". The Daily Telegraph . London. Retrieved 12 March 2017.
  2. Douglas, Torin (11 October 2007). "Book author wins historic libel case". BBC News . Retrieved 12 March 2017.
  3. 1 2 3 "Landmark libel victory for 'Bent Coppers' book". Press Gazette . 11 October 2007. Retrieved 12 March 2017.
  4. Campbell, Duncan (20 June 2006). "Ex-policeman sues publisher for libel". The Guardian . London. Retrieved 18 November 2018.
  5. 1 2 3 McLagan, Graeme (15 October 2007). "Brought to book: Bent Coppers, a book about Scotland Yard's battle against police corruption, led to a four-year libel ordeal for its author". The Guardian . London. Retrieved 18 November 2018.
  6. Campbell, Duncan (21 June 2006). "Author facing libel claim 'tried to be fair'". The Guardian . London. Retrieved 18 November 2018.
  7. 1 2 Campbell, Duncan (19 March 2007). "The future of libel starts here: An appeal court hearing starts today that could have a big impact on crime and current affairs writers". The Guardian . London. Retrieved 18 November 2018.
  8. Dyer, Clare (12 October 2007). "Landmark libel ruling grants more freedom to journalists". The Guardian . London. Retrieved 12 March 2017.
  9. "Case is 'victory for journalism'". BBC News . 11 October 2007. Retrieved 12 March 2017.
  10. "Defamation Act 2013 aims to improve libel laws". BBC News. 31 December 2013. Retrieved 1 July 2021.