Bent Coppers

Last updated

Bent Coppers
Bent Coppers cover.png
Cover of the first edition
Author Graeme McLagan
CountryUnited Kingdom
LanguageEnglish
SubjectCorruption within the Metropolitan Police
Genre Non-fiction
Publisher Orion Publishing Group
Publication date
2003
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

Defamation is the oral or written communication of a false statement about another that unjustly harms their reputation and usually constitutes a tort or crime. In several countries, including South Korea, a true statement can also be considered defamation.

McDonald's Corporation v Steel & Morris [1997] EWHC QB 366, 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.

Birmingham Six

The Birmingham Six were six Irishmen: Hugh Callaghan, Patrick Joseph Hill, Gerard Hunter, Richard McIlkenny, William Power and John Walker, who, in 1975, were each sentenced to life imprisonment following their false convictions for the 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 compensation ranging from £840,000 to £1.2 million.

New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court ruling that the freedom of speech protections in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution restrict the ability of American public officials to sue for defamation. Specifically, it held that if a plaintiff in a defamation lawsuit is a public official or person running for public office, not only must he or she prove the normal elements of defamation—publication of a false defamatory statement to a third party—he or she must also prove that the statement was made with "actual malice", meaning that the defendant either knew the statement was false or recklessly disregarded whether or not it was true.

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

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.

<i>Reynolds v Times Newspapers Ltd</i> Leading English defamation case of 1999

Reynolds v Times Newspapers Ltd was a House of Lords case in English defamation law concerning qualified privilege for publication of defamatory statements in the public interest. The case provided the Reynolds defence, which could be raised where it was clear that the journalist had a duty to publish an allegation even if it turned out to be wrong.

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.

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, as implemented in many Commonwealth nations as well as in the United States and in the Republic of Ireland, 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), though it is unknown whether any generally applicable criminal process was in place. 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. It also supports training in media law and promotes the exchange of information, litigation tools and strategies for lawyers working on media freedom cases.

<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.

<i>Greene v Associated Newspapers Ltd</i>

Greene v Associated Newspapers Ltd [2004] EWCA Civ 1462 is a case of the Court of Appeal of England and Wales that governs the use of injunctions against publication in alleged defamation cases. Greene, a businesswoman, sought an injunction against Associated Newspapers Ltd to prevent them publishing alleged links with Peter Foster; while they claimed to have emails showing links, she asserted that they were false. The test at the time for a preliminary injunction in defamation cases was Bonnard v Perryman, where it was established that the applicant has to show "a real prospect of success" at trial. The Human Rights Act 1998 established that judges should consider whether applicants are "more likely than not" to succeed at trial, a test applied to confidentiality cases in Cream Holdings Ltd v Banerjee and the Liverpool Post and Echo Ltd. Greene claimed that the Cream test should be applied rather than the Bonnard test.

Sir Michael George Tugendhat, styled The Hon. Mr Justice Tugendhat, and called in legal reports Tugendhat J, is a High Court judge in England and Wales. He is the High Court's senior media judge, taking over that role from Mr Justice Eady on 1 October 2010. His appointment was welcomed by some journalists who believed he held "more enlightened beliefs" than his predecessor.

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.

Defamation Act 2013 United Kingdom law reforming defamation law

The Defamation Act 2013 is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, which reformed 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.

Oval Four

The Oval Four are four men—Winston Trew, Sterling Christie, George Griffiths and Constantine "Omar" Boucher—who were arrested by police at Oval tube station in March 1972 supposedly on suspicion of stealing passenger's handbags. The four were held overnight, and their trial eventually lasted five weeks. They were all found guilty of assaulting police officers and attempted theft in November 1972 and received sentences of two years in prison. Following an appeal led by John Platts-Mills, QC, their sentences were later reduced to eight months, although the convictions themselves were upheld, and Lord Justice Haymes commented that the reduction did not ameliorate the seriousness of their crimes. Christie was also convicted of stealing a female police officer's handbag. All four men subsequently appealed, which failed.

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.