Libel

[Nearly Sane]

I have,  on occasion, put up links to Craig Murray's blog and today is when the libel case against him starts. It's an iniquitous law as currently  framed .


https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2017/11/go-stand-trial/

[Humph Warden Bennett]

I have,  on occasion, put up links to Craig Murray's blog and today is when the libel case against him starts. It's an iniquitous law as currently  framed .


https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2017/11/go-stand-trial/

Libel (and Slander) are a rich persons game. It is not possible to issue a libel action within ones local County Court, since whilst the relevant statute was passed as long ago as 1985, the necessary practice direction has never been issued. It is technically possible to have a libel action transferred to the County Court for Trial if all parties agree to the amount that can be awarded being limited to £50 000 (the County Court limit) but in practice this is rare. Like most High Court actions, the majority of these cases are settled out of court.

[Walter]

I have,  on occasion, put up links to Craig Murray's blog and today is when the libel case against him starts. It's an iniquitous law as currently  framed .


https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2017/11/go-stand-trial/

NS

tbh , I have no idea what this case is about or why you've posted it . I've read the link but not much wiser ,. Perhaps you could just explain briefly then I can decide if its important to me or not , thanks .

[Humph Warden Bennett]

Libel (and Slander) are a rich persons game. It is not possible to issue a libel action within ones local County Court, since whilst the relevant statute was passed as long ago as 1985, the necessary practice direction has never been issued. It is technically possible to have a libel action transferred to the County Court for Trial if all parties agree to the amount that can be awarded being limited to £50 000 (the County Court limit) but in practice this is rare. Like most High Court actions, the majority of these cases are settled out of court.

Having re read this, does Craig live in England, or Scotland? If he lives in Scotland, then the Writ from the English Court cannot be served since he would be outside of the jurisdiction of the court, unless he consents, in which case he would seem to be making a rod for his own back.

[Maeght]

Having re read this, does Craig live in England, or Scotland? If he lives in Scotland, then the Writ from the English Court cannot be served since he would be outside of the jurisdiction of the court, unless he consents, in which case he would seem to be making a rod for his own back.

If you re read it did you miss the bit at the start where he said he has accepted English jurisdiction?

[Harrowby Hall]

NS

tbh , I have no idea what this case is about or why you've posted it . I've read the link but not much wiser ,. Perhaps you could just explain briefly then I can decide if its important to me or not , thanks .

You did not see the link within the main link? It contains a copy of the court documents including a transcript of the dialogue involved.

[Humph Warden Bennett]

If you re read it did you miss the bit at the start where he said he has accepted English jurisdiction?

Yes I did. He is making a rod for his own back.

[Nearly Sane]

Yes I did. He is making a rod for his own back.

Yes, I don't understand whty he went with that. And I agree it is a rich person's law which shuts down free speech. Note it's not just English law that is flawed here, same issue in Scotland.

[Humph Warden Bennett]

If he loses the case, then it will be up to the jury as to what he has to pay, the Judge will give guidance to the jury, the huge costs of the case will be what can bankrupt a litigant.

That is why IMHO the Practice Direction should be issued so as to enable the local court to hear this matter. If I want to sue you for an article in the Ilford Recorder, I should be able to sue you in the Romford County Court rather than be forced to go to the RCJ in the Strand.

[Nearly Sane]

Andy Wightman, Green MSP, is currently being sued for 750,000 by a company that has no real assets.


http://www.scottishlegal.com/2016/12/12/andy-wightman-being-sued-for-750000-in-defamation-action/

[Humph Warden Bennett]

Andy Wightman, Green MSP, is currently being sued for 750,000 by a company that has no real assets.


http://www.scottishlegal.com/2016/12/12/andy-wightman-being-sued-for-750000-in-defamation-action/

I have had some, albeit small, experience of the Scottish legal system, although it was breach of contract rather than libel/slander, can one of our Scottish posters inform us as to how such an action proceeds under Scottish Law?

[jeremyp]

I have,  on occasion, put up links to Craig Murray's blog and today is when the libel case against him starts. It's an iniquitous law as currently  framed .


https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2017/11/go-stand-trial/

As far as I can see, he is guilty as charged. The claimant quoted from Murray's blog and Murray called him a liar saying that he (Murray) had never said what he did say (I went to the blog post in question and the quote is accurate).

Having said that, I really don't see how Murray's comment in a lively TV debate is going to materially disadvantage this Jake Wallis Simons person and I assume that is going to be the central plank of Murray's defence. And I do agree that something needs to be done about the iniquitous costs involved in defending (or mounting) a libel case, but I have no idea what.

[jeremyp]

Another interesting point is that the publisher of the comments was technically the broadcaster BSkyB. I presume the reason that they are not named as co-defendants is because they have got plenty of money for lawyers. More evidence that libel is a rich man's law.

[Nearly Sane]

As far as I can see, he is guilty as charged. The claimant quoted from Murray's blog and Murray called him a liar saying that he (Murray) had never said what he did say (I went to the blog post in question and the quote is accurate).

Having said that, I really don't see how Murray's comment in a lively TV debate is going to materially disadvantage this Jake Wallis Simons person and I assume that is going to be the central plank of Murray's defence. And I do agree that something needs to be done about the iniquitous costs involved in defending (or mounting) a libel case, but I have no idea what.

Yes, I agree that it's a bang to rights thing, but as you say not sure someone who I had never heard of could be damaged to that extent. Looking at the comments on the blog it appears to have been settled, though not sure what Craig had to cough up. I really must buy him that drink I owe him.

[Rhiannon]

It seems that someone was advised to see sense. Glad it’s resolved.

[ProfessorDavey]

Looking at the comments on the blog it appears to have been settled, though not sure what Craig had to cough up.

Reading the blog it appears that the £100k he raised will cover everything, including the legal costs, with an implication that there will be some left over.

So in a bizarre financial way everyone appears to be a winner (or at least not a loser) - Murray, Wallis-Simons and especially the lawyers. The only losers financially seem to be those people who donated to him.

Must admit I can't quite see the issue here - we have libel laws for a reason - they protect people from damaging comments being made about them which are untrue. Without libel laws people would be ably to disseminate untrue and damaging comments about individuals with impunity.

[Nearly Sane]

Reading the blog it appears that the £100k he raised will cover everything, including the legal costs, with an implication that there will be some left over.

So in a bizarre financial way everyone appears to be a winner (or at least not a loser) - Murray, Wallis-Simons and especially the lawyers. The only losers financially seem to be those people who donated to him.

Must admit I can't quite see the issue here - we have libel laws for a reason - they protect people from damaging comments being made about them which are untrue. Without libel laws people would be ably to disseminate untrue and damaging comments about individuals with impunity.

You don't see the issue that libel laws are the preserve of the rich and that they are used to bankrupt people to stop comment?

Have a look at my link to the Andy Wightman case posted earlier and tell me why you think that works?

Tell me why needing to raise thousands of pounds to defend yourself is a good system? 

BTW - why are you implying that Craig is benefitting from this when the blog post makes clear that any extra proceeds will be shared to other libel cases including Wightman's?

[ProfessorDavey]

BTW - why are you implying that Craig is benefitting from this when the blog post makes clear that any extra proceeds will be shared to other libel cases including Wightman's?

I didn't - read my post - particularly the bit in brackets.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

As far as I can see, he is guilty as charged. The claimant quoted from Murray's blog and Murray called him a liar saying that he (Murray) had never said what he did say (I went to the blog post in question and the quote is accurate).

Having said that, I really don't see how Murray's comment in a lively TV debate is going to materially disadvantage this Jake Wallis Simons person and I assume that is going to be the central plank of Murray's defence. And I do agree that something needs to be done about the iniquitous costs involved in defending (or mounting) a libel case, but I have no idea what.

I don't think he is guilty as charged.

The line in the blog is "with an aggressive theocratic overlay that claims tribal superiority over the entire rest of the world."

Jake Wallis Simmons claimed live on Sky that Murray's blog said "Israel, quote "claims tribal superiority over the entire rest of the world.""

I don't think you can say "Israel" and "an aggressive theocratic overlay" are synonymous. So Simmons was mis-quoting from the blog. Also Murray starts his sentence on his blog talking about "the concept of Israel", which I think is a very different subject to talking about the actual Israel.

Not sure which claims Murray was referring to when he said an aggressive theocratic overlay claims tribal superiority. Theocratic claims to tribal superiority could be referring to the claim that the Jews are God's Chosen People e.g. Deuteronomy Chapter 14 "For you are a holy people to Hashem your God, and God has chosen you to be his treasured people from all the nations that are on the face of the earth."

And I am not sure what Murray meant by "the concept of Israel".

My view of the Zionist concept of Israel is the notion of Jews going to Zion (the hill of Jerusalem) to attain majority status in the area and, ultimately, political independence and statehood.

The concept involved carrying out unrestricted immigration of Jews into Palestine, whose ancestors had lived for hundreds of years in different parts of the world and had no ancestral claims to the land. The Jewish immigrants ignored the immigration restrictions preventing them from settling in Palestine and forcibly create a Jewish homeland owned by Jews, at the expense of the native Arabs. Of course other people had carried out similar acts of colonisation and appropriation - the Ottomans, the settlers in America and their treatment of native Americans etc. The Arabs managed to revolt against the Ottomans but the native Americans ended up on reservations.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Reading the blog it appears that the £100k he raised will cover everything, including the legal costs, with an implication that there will be some left over.

So in a bizarre financial way everyone appears to be a winner (or at least not a loser) - Murray, Wallis-Simons and especially the lawyers. The only losers financially seem to be those people who donated to him.

Must admit I can't quite see the issue here - we have libel laws for a reason - they protect people from damaging comments being made about them which are untrue. Without libel laws people would be ably to disseminate untrue and damaging comments about individuals with impunity.

I contributed to his fund after NS posted a link and shared the link with friends. I don't feel like I lost financially - I think it was worth it to help support Murray's right to speak up against attempts to silence criticisms of Zionism.

[ProfessorDavey]

I contributed to his fund after NS posted a link and shared the link with friends. I don't feel like I lost financially - I think it was worth it to help support Murray's right to speak up against attempts to silence criticisms of Zionism.

That's fine - however you have less money now than before you donated, so by definition you have lost financially. That you think that is worthwhile is fine, but it doesn't change that fact.

The point I was making is that we are in a strange world where those with a high profile (although not necessarily rich) can raise monies to fight cases and therefore buffer themselves for the penalty that the law imposes in these cases, which is usually financial. So provided you have enough backers prepared to put their hands in their pockets you can, in effect, say what you like. I find that a little troubling, as fundamentally I am on the side of those who are libelled rather than those who libel.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

That's fine - however you have less money now than before you donated, so by definition you have lost financially. That you think that is worthwhile is fine, but it doesn't change that fact.

Strange way for you to look at it - when I buy a car I haven't lost financially. You only lose financially if you have not gained something for the money you spent. So there is no fact - just your strange opinion.

The point I was making is that we are in a strange world where those with a high profile (although not necessarily rich) can raise monies to fight cases and therefore buffer themselves for the penalty that the law imposes in these cases, which is usually financial. So provided you have enough backers prepared to put their hands in their pockets you can, in effect, say what you like. I find that a little troubling, as fundamentally I am on the side of those who are libelled rather than those who libel.

In this case libel laws are being used to silence people from expressing legitimate views. I think Murray was mis-quoted, and the law did not impose a financial penalty - the case never went to court. Murray needed the money in order to have an attempt at a fair trial. Presumably you support the idea of someone having a fair trial. Currently the libel laws mean poor people who can't afford a lawyer are unlikely to get a fair trial.

[ProfessorDavey]

Strange way for you to look at it - when I buy a car I haven't lost financially. You only lose financially if you have not gained something for the money you spent. So there is no fact - just your strange opinion.

All I was doing was being factually accurate - and given that the focus of the thread is cost, then that seems reasonable.

In this case libel laws are being used to silence people from expressing legitimate views.

Other opinions are available - the libel claim was that Murray said that Wallis-Simons was lying - indeed he did so several times. Murray freely admits that his claim was wrong (and is presumably defamatory - although I suspect not grossly as accusations of lying are ten a penny). If someone makes a claim that is defamatory and the person making that claim cannot prove the claim to be true then there is libel - that's what the law says.

I think Murray was mis-quoted, and the law did not impose a financial penalty - the case never went to court.

But that wasn't what the libel claim was about - it was about Murray claiming Wallis-Simons was lying and he has admitted that he was wrong in making that claim.

Murray needed the money in order to have an attempt at a fair trial. Presumably you support the idea of someone having a fair trial. Currently the libel laws mean poor people who can't afford a lawyer are unlikely to get a fair trial.

As I have said I am more concerned about those who are libelled - I think there is a much greater problem with people who cannot defend themselves having been libelled in the traditional media and on-line. 

[jeremyp]

Must admit I can't quite see the issue here - we have libel laws for a reason - they protect people from damaging comments being made about them which are untrue. Without libel laws people would be ably to disseminate untrue and damaging comments about individuals with impunity.

The issue is that your ability to prosecute or defend a libel case depends almost entirely on the depth of your pockets. Let's say that the Daily Mail falsely claimed that you were a pedophile. You lose your job, your partner. Have you got the resources to bring a libel claim against them? Their lawyers can just keep stalling until you run out of money.

Or if you claim on this board that the Daily Mail regularly publishes lies and disinformation and the DM brings a libel claim against you, do you have the resources to defend it?

[Rhiannon]

If I give money to something I think is worthwhile then I haven’t lost, unless all charitable donations should be viewed as such, as well as money spent on experiences, because there is no material gain, only feelings.