McAlpine v Bercow

Last updated

McAlpine v Bercow
Royal Coat of Arms of the United Kingdom (St Edward's Crown).svg
Court High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Queen's Bench Division
Full case name The Lord McAlpine of West Green Claimant v Sally Bercow
Decided24 May 2013
Citation(s)[2013] EWHC 1342 (QB)
Transcript(s) Full text of Approved Judgment
Court membership
Judge sitting The Hon. Mr Justice Tugendhat
Keywords

McAlpine v Bercow was a landmark libel case in 2013 between Conservative peer Lord McAlpine and Sally Bercow, the wife of John Bercow, Speaker of the House of Commons.

Contents

Background

Lord McAlpine alleged that he was defamed by comments implying that he was a paedophile published by Sally Bercow on Twitter, a social networking service. [1] This followed the broadcast on 2 November 2012 of a report by BBC Two's Newsnight which linked an unnamed "senior Conservative" politician to sex abuse claims. [2] [3] On 4 November 2012, Bercow tweeted "Why is Lord McAlpine trending? *innocent face*" [4] [5]

When the allegations against McAlpine proved to be unfounded, Bercow was one of a number of people that the peer threatened with legal action. [6] The BBC subsequently apologised and paid £185,000 to McAlpine in damages and the ITV television network paid him £125,000 in damages. McAlpine commenced legal actions against users of Twitter who had repeated the claims but users with fewer than 500 followers were allowed to settle the matter by making a donation of £25 to the BBC Children in Need charity. [2] [7] [8] McAlpine donated the libel damages from BBC and ITV to Children in Need and other charities. [9]

McAlpine's lawyers said that they would continue to pursue 20 "high profile Tweeters" (users with more than 500 followers) including Bercow, comedian Alan Davies and writer George Monbiot. [4] Acting on behalf of McAlpine, solicitor Andrew Reid announced: "Twitter is not just a closed coffee shop among friends. It goes out to hundreds of thousands of people and you must take responsibility for it. It is not a place where you can gossip and say things with impunity, and we are about to demonstrate that." [10]

In November 2012, Monbiot published "Lord McAlpine – An Abject Apology" on his personal website and apologised for acting "in an unprofessional, thoughtless and cruel manner". Monbiot also wrote personally to McAlpine [11] [12] and agreed to undertake charity work. [5] [13] Davies apologised publicly and privately to McAlpine in November 2012. [14] In contrast, Bercow "consistently denied that her tweets were libellous" and in December 2012 she appointed the law firm Carter-Ruck to defend her against the claim. [7] [15] [16] [17] At the time that the tweet was made she had 56,000 followers, described by Sir Edward Garnier QC, for McAlpine, as "a bigger readership than many regional newspapers". [5] [18]

Judgment

At a preliminary hearing held on 16 April 2013 it was decided that the trial should be split into two stages. The first stage would decide if the words of the tweet could be considered defamatory. If this was found to be the case a second hearing would be held to determine the level of damages unless both parties were able to reach an agreement. [18]

The judgment in the first stage was handed down on 24 May 2013. The Hon. Mr Justice Tugendhat was asked to rule on the meaning of Bercow's tweet, particularly the phrase "innocent face" which the judge said was intended to be read "as a stage direction" with readers "imagining that they can see [Bercow's] face as she asks the question in the Tweet. The words direct the reader to imagine that the expression on her face is one of innocence, that is an expression which purports to indicate (sincerely, on the Defendant's case, but insincerely or ironically on the Claimant's case) that she does not know the answer to her question." [19] [20]

The judge said that there were two different kinds of meaning recognised in law: "a natural and ordinary meaning" and "an innuendo meaning". Citing Jones v Skelton, [21] Mr Justice Tugendhat explained that a natural and ordinary meaning may be either the literal meaning or a meaning "that does not require the support of extrinsic facts passing beyond general knowledge". An innuendo meaning, he said, "is a meaning which can be implied from the words complained of, but only if the reader also knows other facts (which are not general knowledge). These are generally called extrinsic facts." [22] The judge decided that any reasonable reader would understand both meanings of Bercow's tweet and interpret the "innocent face" as insincere and ironical: "There is no sensible reason for including those words in the tweet if they are to be taken as meaning that the defendant simply wants to know the answer to a factual question." [20] [23] The judge decided that the Tweet meant "in its natural and ordinary defamatory meaning, that the Claimant was a paedophile who was guilty of sexually abusing boys living in care". [24] With regard to the innuendo of the tweet Mr Justice Tugendhat found that the Tweet carried a meaning "to the same effect" and found that the tweet was "an allegation of guilt. I see no room on these facts for any less serious meaning." [24] [25] As it had already been accepted by Bercow prior to the hearing that McAlpine was innocent of the allegations her tweet was "seriously defamatory" and indefensible in law. [20]

Following judgment both parties reached an agreement and Bercow agreed to pay damages. [26] Bercow was also ordered to apologise in open court to McAlpine, who said that he would travel to London from his home in Italy "to hear it personally". [9]

Reactions

Prior to judgment Bercow made two offers to settle out of court. Both were rejected by McAlpine, leading to Joshua Rozenberg, a lawyer and columnist for London's The Guardian newspaper, to opine "that the undisclosed, agreed damages were higher than she had hoped." [20] McAlpine's solicitor Andrew Reid said: "The apologies previously received from Mrs Bercow did not concede that her tweet was defamatory but clearly she must now accept this fact. Her failure to admit that her tweet was defamatory caused considerable unnecessary pain and suffering to Lord McAlpine and his family over the last six months. The judgment is one of great public interest and provides both a warning to and guidance for people who use social media." Rozenberg noted: "The law of defamation is well known to those who write for a living. One hopes Twitter users are beginning to learn what a powerful and potentially dangerous weapon they have at their fingertips. A tweet is more like a broadcast than an email and is subject to the law of libel in the same way." [20]

Bercow said: "The High Court found that my tweet constituted a serious libel, both in its natural meaning and as an innuendo. To say I am surprised and disappointed by this is an understatement. I will accept the ruling as the end of the matter. I remain sorry for the distress I have caused Lord McAlpine and I repeat my apologies. Today's ruling should be seen as a warning to all social media users." [5]

Patrick Strudwick, also writing in The Guardian, noted that on the day of the hearing many Twitter users tweeted: "Why is Sally Bercow trending? *libel face*", a humorous reference to her defamatory tweet. [27]

The case was subsequently cited in the judgement in the 2017 Monroe v Hopkins libel case. [28]

See also

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">Edward Garnier</span> British barrister and Conservative Party politician

Edward Henry Garnier, Baron Garnier, is a British barrister and former Conservative Party politician in the United Kingdom. A former lawyer for The Guardian newspaper, Lord Garnier is on the socially liberal wing of his party and was the Member of Parliament (MP) for Harborough in Leicestershire from 1992 until 2017. He most recently served as Solicitor General for England and Wales from the election of 2010 until the 2012 ministerial reshuffle. He stood down from the House of Commons at the 2017 general election before entering the House of Lords in 2018.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">George Monbiot</span> English writer and political activist (born 1963)

George Joshua Richard Monbiot is a British journalist, author, and environmental and political activist. He writes a regular column for The Guardian and has written several books.

Living Marxism was a British magazine originally launched in 1988 as the journal of the Revolutionary Communist Party (RCP). The magazine attracted attention for denying both the Rwandan genocide and Bosnian genocide. Rebranded as LM in 1992, it ceased publication in March 2000 following a successful libel lawsuit brought by ITN over Living Marxism's criticism of ITN's coverage of the Bosnian war. It was promptly resurrected as Spiked, an Internet magazine.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Alistair McAlpine, Baron McAlpine of West Green</span> British businessman, politician and author (1942–2014)

Robert Alistair McAlpine, Baron McAlpine of West Green was a British businessman, politician and author who was an advisor to Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Laurence Fox</span> English actor and political activist (born 1978)

Laurence Paul Fox is an English actor, broadcaster, musician, and political activist. A member of the British entertainment industry's Fox family, he graduated from the Royal Academy of Dramatic Art and debuted in the film The Hole (2001). His best known role is James Hathaway in the TV drama series Lewis (2006–2015). He has also released a studio album titled Holding Patterns (2016).

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Katie Hopkins</span> English media personality (born 1975)

Katie Olivia Hopkins is an English media personality, columnist, far-right political commentator, and former businesswoman. She was a contestant on the third series of the reality television show The Apprentice in 2007; following further appearances in the media, she became a columnist for British national newspapers, including The Sun (2013–2015) and MailOnline (2015–2017).

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.

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.

The origins of the United States' defamation laws pre-date the American Revolution; one influential case in 1734 involved John Peter Zenger and established precedent that "The Truth" is an absolute defense against charges of libel. Though the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution was designed to protect freedom of the press, for most of the history of the United States, the U.S. Supreme Court failed to use it to rule on libel cases. This left libel laws, based upon the traditional "Common Law" of defamation inherited from the English legal system, mixed across the states. The 1964 case New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, however, radically changed the nature of libel law in the United States by establishing that public officials could win a suit for libel only when they could prove the media outlet in question knew either that the information was wholly and patently false or that it was published "with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not". Later Supreme Court cases barred strict liability for libel and forbade libel claims for statements that are so ridiculous as to be obviously facetious. Recent cases have added precedent on defamation law and the Internet.

Sally Morgan is a British television and stage artist, author and controversially, a self-proclaimed psychic medium.

Sally Kate Bercow is a British public personality and the wife of the former Speaker of the House of Commons, John Bercow.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">David Allen Green</span> British lawyer and writer

David Allen Green is an English lawyer and writer. He is the former legal correspondent for the New Statesman; writes about law and policy for the Financial Times; and has previously blogged using the pseudonym Jack of Kent.

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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Phil Flanagan</span>

Phil Flanagan is an Irish Gaelic Athletic Association (GAA) executive and former Sinn Fein politician who was a Member of the Northern Ireland Assembly (MLA) for Fermanagh and South Tyrone from 2011 to 2016. He was the Sinn Féin spokesperson on Enterprise, Trade and Investment, and was also a Fermanagh District Councillor for the Erne West DEA from 2009 to 2011, and then briefly for Erne North in 2011.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Peter Cruddas, Baron Cruddas</span> English banker and businessman

Peter Andrew Cruddas, Baron Cruddas is an English banker and businessman. He is the founder of online trading company CMC Markets. In the 2007 Sunday Times Rich List, he was named the richest man in the City of London, with an estimated fortune of £860 million. As of March 2012, Forbes estimated his wealth at $1.3 billion, equivalent to £830 million at the time.

<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 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.

Wings Over Scotland is a pro-Scottish independence blog by Scottish video game journalist Stuart Campbell. It was launched in November 2011 with the stated aim of providing a "fair and honest perspective on Scottish politics" with a pro-independence slant.

Monroe v Hopkins was a 2017 libel case in the High Court of England and Wales. It was brought by the food writer and activist Jack Monroe against the columnist Katie Hopkins after Hopkins falsely alleged that Monroe had vandalised a war memorial. Hopkins was ordered to pay hundreds of thousands of pounds in damages and legal fees.

References

  1. ↑ "Bercow in court for McAlpine case". Braintree & Witham Times. 16 May 2013. Retrieved 21 May 2013.
  2. 1 2 Greenslade, Roy (24 May 2013). "Twitter users should learn lessons from Sally Bercow's libellous tweet". The Guardian . Retrieved 26 May 2013.
  3. ↑ "Lord McAlpine's solicitor says Sally Bercow 'acted dishonourably'". BBC News. 24 May 2013. Retrieved 26 May 2012.
  4. 1 2 Dowell, Ben (23 November 2012). "McAlpine libel: 20 tweeters including Sally Bercow pursued for damages". The Guardian . Retrieved 26 May 2013.
  5. 1 2 3 4 Sherwin, Adam (24 May 2013). "Twitter libel: Sally Bercow says she has 'learned the hard way' as she settles with Tory peer Lord McAlpine over libellous tweet" . The Independent . London. Archived from the original on 12 May 2022. Retrieved 30 May 2013.
  6. ↑ Furness, Hannah (15 November 2012). "Lord McAlpine threatens to sue Speaker's wife Sally Bercow". The Daily Telegraph . London. Retrieved 20 November 2012.
  7. 1 2 Halliday, Josh (21 February 2013). "Lord McAlpine drops some Twitter defamation cases". The Guardian . Retrieved 26 May 2013.
  8. ↑ Rayner, Gordon (21 November 2012). "Lord McAlpine tells Twitter users he does not intend to 'create hardship' as he pursues them for damages". The Daily Telegraph . London. Retrieved 26 May 2013.
  9. 1 2 Cheston, Paul (24 May 2013). "Humiliation for Sally Bercow as Speaker's wife faces £150,000 bill over Lord McAlpine libel tweet". Evening Standard . London. Retrieved 26 May 2013.
  10. ↑ Swinford, Steven; Rayner, Gordon (15 November 2012). "Peer to sue tweeters who linked him to sex abuse as BBC pays £185,000 damages". The Daily Telegraph . London. Retrieved 26 May 2013.
  11. ↑ Monbiot, George (10 November 2012). "Lord McAlpine – An Abject Apology". monbiot.com. Retrieved 26 May 2013.
  12. ↑ Furness, Hannah (16 November 2012). "Lord McAlpine: Guardian will not pay George Monbiot's legal costs". The Daily Telegraph . London. Retrieved 26 May 2013.
  13. ↑ Halliday, Josh (12 March 2013). "Lord McAlpine row: George Monbiot reaches 'unprecedented' settlement". The Guardian . Retrieved 30 May 2013.
  14. ↑ Hough, Andrew (19 November 2012). "Alan Davies apologises over Lord McAlpine tweet". The Daily Telegraph . London. Retrieved 26 May 2013.
  15. ↑ "Sally Bercow Sued By Lord McAlpine For £50k". Sky News. 13 December 2012. Retrieved 23 December 2012.
  16. ↑ Halliday, Josh (13 December 2012). "Sally Bercow faces Lord McAlpine high court battle". The Guardian . Retrieved 23 December 2012.
  17. ↑ Halliday, Josh (4 March 2013). "Sally Bercow denies 'trivialising' public apology to Lord McAlpine". The Guardian . Retrieved 30 May 2013.
  18. 1 2 Halliday, Josh (16 April 2013). "Lord McAlpine wins first round in hearing for Twitter libel case". The Guardian . Retrieved 30 May 2013.
  19. ↑ "McAlpine-Bercow Judgment" (PDF). judiciary.gov.uk. 24 May 2013. ¶ 7. Retrieved 26 May 2013.
  20. 1 2 3 4 5 Rozenberg, Joshua (24 May 2013). "Sally Bercow learns the social media rules the hard way in McAlpine case". The Guardian . Retrieved 26 May 2013.
  21. ↑ [1963] 1 WLR 1362
  22. ↑ "McAlpine-Bercow Judgment" (PDF). judiciary.gov.uk. 24 May 2013. ¶ 47–54. Retrieved 14 November 2014.
  23. ↑ "McAlpine-Bercow Judgment" (PDF). judiciary.gov.uk. 24 May 2013. ¶ 84. Retrieved 26 May 2013.
  24. 1 2 "McAlpine-Bercow Judgment" (PDF). judiciary.gov.uk. 24 May 2013. ¶ 88-91. Retrieved 26 May 2013.
  25. ↑ Halliday, Josh (24 May 2013). "Sally Bercow tweet libelled Lord McAlpine, high court rules". The Guardian . Retrieved 30 May 2013.
  26. ↑ "High Court: Sally Bercow's Lord McAlpine tweet was libel". BBC News. 24 May 2013. Retrieved 24 May 2013.
  27. ↑ Strudwick, Patrick (24 May 2013). "Sally Bercow's Lord McAlpine libel: Twitter is over. O.V.E.R." The Guardian . Retrieved 26 May 2013.
  28. ↑ [2017] EWHC 433 (QB) (10 March 2017), [2017] EMLR 16, [2017] 4 WLR 68, [2017] WLR(D) 188
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.