Rhodes v OPO

Last updated

Rhodes v OPO
Badge of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom.svg
Court Supreme Court of the United Kingdom
Full case name James Rhodes (Appellant) v OPO (by his litigation friend BHM) and another (Respondents)
Argued19, 20 January 2015
Decided20 May 2015
Neutral citation[2015] UKSC 32
Case history
Prior history[2014] EWCA Civ 1277
Holding
Appeal allowed, restraining publication would be an inappropriate restriction on freedom of expression
Case opinions
MajorityLady Hale, Lords Toulson, Clarke, Wilson and Neuberger
Laws applied
Wilkinson v Downton [1897] EWHC 1 (QB)
Area of law
Freedom of speech

Rhodes v OPO [2015] UKSC 32 was a 2015 judgment by the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom that overturned an injunction preventing the publication of a memoir entitled Instrumental by concert pianist James Rhodes. [1]

Contents

Facts

James Rhodes' memoir is an account of the physical and sexual abuse he suffered as a young boy and his subsequent battles with drink, drugs and his own mental health. [2] In February 2014 a draft of the book was leaked to Rhodes' ex-wife, Kathleen Tessaro, [3] who, in June 2014, sought an injunction on behalf of their son that would delete a large number of passages or prohibit publication entirely. The son has been diagnosed with Asperger’s syndrome, attention deficit hyperactivity order, dyspraxia and dysgraphia and evidence was adduced that publication in the present form would cause severe emotional distress and psychological harm. [4]

Judgment

High Court

The application for an interim injunction was dismissed by Bean J in July 2014 on the basis that an action in tort under Wilkinson v Downton [1897] EWHC 1 (QB) did not extend beyond false or threatening words. [5]

Court of Appeal

Arden, Jackson and McFarlane LLJ granted an interim injunction on the grounds that liability under Wilkinson v Downton can arise even if the statement is true. Jackson LJ held that the rule is that the statement must be "unjustified and that the defendant intends to cause or is reckless about causing physical or psychiatric injury to the claimant." [6]

Supreme Court

The Supreme Court held that the tort under Wilkinson v Downton consists of three elements:

  1. A conduct element
  2. A mental element
  3. A consequence element

The conduct element requires "words or conduct directed towards the claimant for which there is no justification or reasonable excuse, and the burden of proof is on the claimant." [7] In the present case the court placed great emphasis on freedom of speech and held that "freedom to report the truth is a basic right to which the law gives a very high level of protection." [8]

The mental element meanwhile requires an "intention to cause physical harm or severe mental or emotional distress". [9] This overruled the Court of Appeal judgment that held recklessness to be sufficient. It was held that Rhodes did not intend to cause psychiatric harm or severe mental or emotional distress to his son. [10]

The consequence element requires evidence of physical harm or recognised psychiatric illness but was not relevant in this case. [11]

The court decided that the appeal should be allowed and Instrumental by James Rhodes was published by Canongate Books as an e-book on 25 May 2015 and a hardback edition was published on 28 May 2015.

Classical pianist James Rhodes James rhodes pianist.jpg
Classical pianist James Rhodes

Reaction

Stephen Fry tweeted that the case represented "Victory at last for freedom of speech". [12]

Related Research Articles

At common law, damages are a remedy in the form of a monetary award to be paid to a claimant as compensation for loss or injury. To warrant the award, the claimant must show that a breach of duty has caused foreseeable loss. To be recognized at law, the loss must involve damage to property, or mental or physical injury; pure economic loss is rarely recognized for the award of damages.

Negligence is a failure to exercise appropriate care expected to be exercised in similar circumstances.

A tort is a civil wrong, other than breach of contract, that causes a claimant to suffer loss or harm, resulting in legal liability for the person who commits the tortious act. Tort law can be contrasted with criminal law, which deals with criminal wrongs that are punishable by the state. While criminal law aims to punish individuals who commit crimes, tort law aims to compensate individuals who suffer harm as a result of the actions of others. Some wrongful acts, such as assault and battery, can result in both a civil lawsuit and a criminal prosecution in countries where the civil and criminal legal systems are separate. Tort law may also be contrasted with contract law, which provides civil remedies after breach of a duty that arises from a contract. Obligations in both tort and criminal law are more fundamental and are imposed regardless of whether the parties have a contract.

Intentional infliction of emotional distress is a common law tort that allows individuals to recover for severe emotional distress caused by another individual who intentionally or recklessly inflicted emotional distress by behaving in an "extreme and outrageous" way. Some courts and commentators have substituted mental for emotional, but the tort is the same.

The tort of negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED) is a controversial cause of action, which is available in nearly all U.S. states but is severely constrained and limited in the majority of them. The underlying concept is that one has a legal duty to use reasonable care to avoid causing emotional distress to another individual. If one fails in this duty and unreasonably causes emotional distress to another person, that actor will be liable for monetary damages to the injured individual. The tort is to be contrasted with intentional infliction of emotional distress in that there is no need to prove intent to inflict distress. That is, an accidental infliction, if negligent, is sufficient to support a cause of action.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">English tort law</span> Branch of English law concerning civil wrongs

English tort law concerns the compensation for harm to people's rights to health and safety, a clean environment, property, their economic interests, or their reputations. A "tort" is a wrong in civil law, rather than criminal law, that usually requires a payment of money to make up for damage that is caused. Alongside contracts and unjust enrichment, tort law is usually seen as forming one of the three main pillars of the law of obligations.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Personal injury</span> Legal term for an injury to a person

Personal injury is a legal term for an injury to the body, mind, or emotions, as opposed to an injury to property. In common law jurisdictions the term is most commonly used to refer to a type of tort lawsuit in which the person bringing the suit has suffered harm to their body or mind. Personal injury lawsuits are filed against the person or entity that caused the harm through negligence, gross negligence, reckless conduct, or intentional misconduct, and in some cases on the basis of strict liability. Different jurisdictions describe the damages in different ways, but damages typically include the injured person's medical bills, pain and suffering, and diminished quality of life.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Canadian tort law</span> Aspect of Canadian law

Canadian tort law is composed of two parallel systems: a common law framework outside Québec and a civil law framework within Québec, making the law system is bijural, as it is used throughout Canadian provinces except for Québec, which uses private law. In nine of Canada's ten provinces and three territories, tort law originally derives that of England and Wales but has developed distinctly since Canadian Confederation in 1867 and has been influenced by jurisprudence in other common law jurisdictions. As most aspects of tort law in Canada are the subject of provincial jurisdiction under the Canadian Constitution, tort law varies even between the country's common law provinces and territories.

Harassment is a topic which, in the past few decades, has been taken increasingly seriously in the United Kingdom, and has been the subject of a number of pieces of legislation.

In English law, a nervous shock is a psychiatric / mental illness or injury inflicted upon a person by intentional or negligent actions or omissions of another. Often it is a psychiatric disorder triggered by witnessing an accident, for example an injury caused to one's parents or spouse. Although the term "nervous shock" has been described as "inaccurate" and "misleading", it continues to be applied as a useful abbreviation for a complex concept. The possibility of recovering damages for nervous shock, particularly caused by negligence, is strongly limited in English law.

<i>Wilkinson v Downton</i>

Wilkinson v Downton[1897] EWHC 1 (QB), [1897] 2 QB 57 is an English tort law decision in which the Common Law first recognised the tort of intentional infliction of mental shock. At the time, this was not covered under the law of negligence.

Sidaway v Board of Governors of the Bethlem Royal Hospital [1985] AC 871 is an important House of Lords case in English tort law, specifically medical negligence, concerning the duty of a surgeon to inform a patient of the risks before undergoing an operation.

<i>Wainwright v Home Office</i> Legal case in the United Kingdom

Wainwright v Home Office[2003] UKHL 53, [2004] 2 AC 406 is an English tort law case concerning the arguments for a tort of privacy, and the action for battery.

The following outline is provided as an overview of and introduction to tort law in common law jurisdictions:

<span class="mw-page-title-main">James Rhodes (pianist)</span> British pianist

James Edward Rhodes is a British-Spanish concert pianist and writer, and an activist for the protection of minors against sexual abuse in Spain.

<i>Attia v British Gas plc</i>

Attia v British Gas Plc [1988] QB 304 is an English tort law case, establishing that nervous shock from witnessing the destruction of personal property may be actionable. Prior to this case, a duty of care for an individual's mental health had not been established in situations not involving personal injury or the witnessing of such an event. The Court of Appeal ruled that British Gas were liable for the subsequent shock and depression of Mrs Attia, following the near total destruction of her home and possessions.

Trespass in English law is an area of tort law broadly divided into three groups: trespass to the person, trespass to goods, and trespass to land.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">George Leggatt, Lord Leggatt</span> British judge (born 1957)

George Andrew Midsomer Leggatt, Lord Leggatt, is a Justice of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, the highest court of law in the United Kingdom.

<i>PJS v News Group Newspapers Ltd</i> UK legal case

PJS v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2016] UKSC 26 is a UK constitutional law case in which an anonymised privacy injunction was obtained by a claimant, identified in court documents as "PJS", to prohibit publication of the details of a sexual encounter between him and two other people. Media outside England and Wales identified PJS as David Furnish.

Catholic Child Welfare Society v Institute of the Brothers of the Christian Schools [2012] UKSC 56 is an English tort law case, concerning vicarious liability.

References

  1. Shaffi, Sarah (20 May 2015). "Supreme Court overturns James Rhodes injunction | The Bookseller". The Bookseller.
  2. "Pianist can publish abuse memoir". BBC News. 20 May 2015.
  3. "Ex-Pittsburgher takes new turn in London". triblive.com . 6 July 2003.
  4. [2015] UKSC 32, [18]
  5. [2015] UKSC 32, [21]
  6. [2014] EWCA Civ 1277, [119]
  7. [2015] UKSC 32, [74]
  8. [2015] UKSC 32, [77]
  9. [2015] UKSC 32, [87]
  10. [2015] UKSC 32, [89]
  11. [2015] UKSC 32, [88]
  12. Bingham, John (20 May 2015). "Benedict Cumberbatch's concert pianist friend wins right to publish child abuse memoir". The Telegraph.