Libel

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

You obviously didn't read the court documents. The claim of libel is all about Murray's statements that Simons lied on a TV programme. The transcript is there with the relevant parts underlined.

Evasion noted on the point you asked me to clarify about the difference between Israel and the concept of Israel. If you didn't want to discuss it - don't bring it up and ask me for an explanation. Simple.

You obviously didn't read the court documents. The words underlined are the words complained of and were made on TV and include the accusation that when people like Murray are critical of Israel and point out what is happening to the Palestinians, they are falsely accused of anti-semitism because there is a campaign to stop people fighting for the right of Palestinians by making them terrified that they will come on the media and be falsely accused of making anti-Semitic comments. 

Paragraph 7 of Simons' claim for libel is that Murray's "subsequent blogpost redoubled the allegation that the Claimant [Simons] was party to a deliberate campaign to discredit supporters of the Palestinians as anti-semites."

[Nearly Sane]

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.

Actually looking at the current laws, I think he was right to go with English jurisdiction, The Defamation Act 2013 makes this an easier case to defend than in Scotland where the law is still unreformed.

[Nearly Sane]

It's an odd one. I'm not sure the remarks could be taken as slander since they just say that he would say the joke is ok - even though it's anti semitic, I'm not sure you can take it that she was accusing him of anti-Semitism. Had she done so that it could be argued that it was since although there would be no actual damage it could be seen as slander based on the definition below;



•Where the slander is calculated to disparage you in any office, profession, calling trade or business held or carried on by you at the time of the publication;
•Where the slander is published of you in the way of your office or calling and is in relation to your conduct in that office or calling and imputes unfitness for or misconduct in that office or calling;

[ProfessorDavey]

In your opinion have the libel laws moved on since his day?

Absolutely - most notably via the Defamation Act 2013.

It was attempted against Simon Singh.

A case which he won, so this is hardly supporting your argument.

Interestingly this is science-focus case. Now trawling around the web I have come across sites claiming that the scientific community feels that they cannot engage in free speech on scientific matters due to the libel laws. News to me. I have been part of that scientific community for several decades, including countless interactions with individual scientists, plus being on committees of scientific organisations that are likely to be significantly concerned were this the case. In all that time I cannot remember anyone expressing concern that the libel laws are restricting their ability to speak out on scientific matters - not once. I have been involved in discussions on other matters that seemed to restrict the ability of scientists and other academics to voice opinions within their professional realm (e.g. the recent Higher Education Bill - since revised) but never on libel.

[jeremyp]

I see you subscribe to the Sass school of posting - repeating your assertions and putting them in bold still doesn't make them correct.

You were wrong in exactly the same way second time round as the first time round. The reasons why you were wrong haven't changed, therefore I repeated them.

His defence.

You seem to think that somebody saying what their defence is going to be means that they are right.

[ProfessorDavey]

Paragraph 7 of Simons' claim for libel is that Murray's "subsequent blogpost redoubled the allegation that the Claimant [Simons] was party to a deliberate campaign to discredit supporters of the Palestinians as anti-semites."

I accept that there is an underlined section relating to Murray's claim regarding discredit supporters of Israel - see end of section 4. However the entire claim is about lying rather than any other claim.

So if you look at sections 9 and 10, which focus on the 'harm' (which is a necessary requirement for libel) they are entirely about the accusation of lying, which the claimant suggests is particularly harmful to a professional journalist.

I know you want it to be about something else, but this libel case is entirely about Murray accusing Simon of lying (which he didn't as Murray subsequently accepted).

[ProfessorDavey]

No, the important part in the context of this thread is that Craig Murray accused him of lying, when no reasonable person would call what Simons said a lie.

And indeed in due course Murray also accepted that it wasn't a lie.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

You were wrong in exactly the same way second time round as the first time round. The reasons why you were wrong haven't changed, therefore I repeated them.
You seem to think that somebody saying what their defence is going to be means that they are right.

You seem to think repeating your assertions (without bold this time for a change) means that you are right. You're not.

It's logical to discuss a defence to a claim - it's called looking into both sides rather than just continuing with a one-sided claim. It happens a lot in the interests of fairness during a legal process - perhaps fairness is a new concept to you. In this instance we don't know the court's view as the two sides settled. 

[ProfessorDavey]

It's logical to discuss a defence to a claim - it's called looking into both sides rather than just continuing with a one-sided claim.

But the claim is that Murray called Simon a liar on live TV when that wasn't true. There is no defence, as both Simon, and indeed Murray accept that the claim was not true.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

I accept that there is an underlined section relating to Murray's claim regarding discredit supporters of Israel - see end of section 4. However the entire claim is about lying rather than any other claim.

So if you look at sections 9 and 10, which focus on the 'harm' (which is a necessary requirement for libel) they are entirely about the accusation of lying, which the claimant suggests is particularly harmful to a professional journalist.

I know you want it to be about something else, but this libel case is entirely about Murray accusing Simon of lying (which he didn't as Murray subsequently accepted).

Your assertion about the claim, or rather what you want this entire claim to be about, is not supported by sections 9 and 10 of the claim, nor by the subsequent documents. The Particulars of Serious Harm, sections 9 and 10, talks about the Words Complained Of, which includes the allegation, repeated on the blog as mentioned in the court documents, that Simons was trying to discredit Palestinian supporters by accusing them of anti-Semitism. 

[ProfessorDavey]

Your assertion about the claim, or rather what you want this entire claim to be about, is not supported by sections 9 and 10 of the claim, nor by the subsequent documents. The Particulars of Serious Harm, sections 9 and 10, talks about the Words Complained Of, which includes the allegation, repeated on the blog as mentioned in the court documents, that Simons was trying to discredit Palestinian supporters by accusing them of anti-Semitism.

As I pointed out before the key claim was of lying - and indeed the only claim which is justified in libel terms, as for there to libel the statement must both be untrue and also harmful, and in the court documents the only references to harm are in relation to the lying. See section 5 and also 9. From section 9:

'As a journalist and broadcaster, there are few more damaging allegations than of concocting evidence or deliberately lying about the source of a quotation. The seriousness of the sting of the defamatory words is particularly high given the profession of the person targeted.'

That is entirely about the accusation that Simon was lying.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

But the claim is that Murray called Simon a liar on live TV when that wasn't true. There is no defence, as both Simon, and indeed Murray accept that the claim was not true.

The thread was about the libel case. A case has a claim and a defence, so the context of this thread is the claim and the defence.

The claim includes the accusation of lying and of being engaged in a witch hunt against critics of Israel - and the court documents state in Para 5 (which explains the Words Complained Of) that the particulars of the claim are that the Defendant made an accusation on TV that the Claimant made knowingly false accusations about the Defendant publishing a comment about Israel claiming tribal superiority and also that the Claimant wilfully lied about copying it from the Defendant's blog that morning and that the Claimant was engaged in a witch hunt of critics of Israel, by making accusations of anti-Semitism that he knew to be false.

Paragraph 5 was denied in Murray's defence documents. Murray did state in his blog that he was wrong to call  Simons a liar and accepted Simons was not lying in the court documents. Calling someone a liar is almost impossible to defend in a libel action unless you can prove the person knowingly made a false statement, so from a legal proof standpoint Simons was not lying.   

Considering the words of the settlement - By this statement, Mr Murray accepts that Dr Wallis Simons is not a liar, and Dr Wallis Simons accepts that Mr Murray is not an anti-Semite - the case was about more than lying. There is no retraction to the witch hunt accusation and Murray has shown that false accusations of anti-semitism to shut down legitimate criticism of Zionism or Israel can be challenged.

https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2017/11/the-end-of-the-affair/

[ProfessorDavey]

The thread was about the libel case. A case has a claim and a defence, so the context of this thread is the claim and the defence.

The claim includes the accusation of lying and of being engaged in a witch hunt against critics of Israel - and the court documents state in Para 5 (which explains the Words Complained Of) that the particulars of the claim are that the Defendant made an accusation on TV that the Claimant made knowingly false accusations about the Defendant publishing a comment about Israel claiming tribal superiority and also that the Claimant wilfully lied about copying it from the Defendant's blog that morning and that the Claimant was engaged in a witch hunt of critics of Israel, by making accusations of anti-Semitism that he knew to be false.

Paragraph 5 was denied in Murray's defence documents. Murray did state in his blog that he was wrong to call  Simons a liar and accepted Simons was not lying in the court documents. Calling someone a liar is almost impossible to defend in a libel action unless you can prove the person knowingly made a false statement, so from a legal proof standpoint Simons was not lying.   

Considering the words of the settlement - By this statement, Mr Murray accepts that Dr Wallis Simons is not a liar, and Dr Wallis Simons accepts that Mr Murray is not an anti-Semite - the case was about more than lying. There is no retraction to the witch hunt accusation and Murray has shown that false accusations of anti-semitism to shut down legitimate criticism of Zionism or Israel can be challenged.

https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2017/11/the-end-of-the-affair/

Nope the claim as we see it - i.e. a claim from Simons that Murray libelled him is predicated on the basis that Murray called him a liar.

That the final settlement involves Mr Murray accepts that Dr Wallis Simons is not a liar, and Dr Wallis Simons accepts that Mr Murray is not an anti-Semite is irrelevant to the original libel claim. I suspect (although we are not party to the discussions) that Murray, or his legal team, will have raised the possibility of a counter libel suit from Murray on the basis of a claim of anti-Semitism. But that was never the focus of the actual libel claim from Simons about Murray, which was about being accused of lying.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

As I pointed out before the key claim was of lying - and indeed the only claim which is justified in libel terms, as for there to libel the statement must both be untrue and also harmful, and in the court documents the only references to harm are in relation to the lying. See section 5 and also 9. From section 9:

'As a journalist and broadcaster, there are few more damaging allegations than of concocting evidence or deliberately lying about the source of a quotation. The seriousness of the sting of the defamatory words is particularly high given the profession of the person targeted.'

That is entirely about the accusation that Simon was lying.

You've only quoted the first part of section 9. As I pointed out the rest of section 9 goes on to talk about the harm caused by the Words Complained Of, which were underlined and then explained in section 5,  and which includes the allegation that the Claimant was engaged in a witch hunt of critics of Israel by....etc etc - see my reply above for the wording.

Also, Murray's blog goes on to say "The wildly disproportionate effect of using a libel claim to bankrupt somebody and destroy their lives needs to be highlighted. This means for the wealthy to silence and ruin the poor needs to be exposed for what it is."

He also links to an interview by the Claimant's lawyer, "headlined “UK’s Foremost Libel Lawyer Sets His Sights on Israel’s Enemies.”. It characterises opponents of Israel as “Nazis” and opines “I am quite happy to take their homes off them… at least they can be a homeless Nazi.”

So the libel case is about more than lying.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Nope the claim as we see it - i.e. a claim from Simons that Murray libelled him is predicated on the basis that Murray called him a liar.

You can keep making whatever assertions you like. Section 5 of the claim and the preceding paragraph that underline the Words Complained Of show that the claim includes serious harm to reputation from the accusations of lying and the accusation that Simons was on a witch hunt of critics of Israel by trying to smear them as anti-semitic.

That the final settlement involves Mr Murray accepts that Dr Wallis Simons is not a liar, and Dr Wallis Simons accepts that Mr Murray is not an anti-Semite is irrelevant to the original libel claim. I suspect (although we are not party to the discussions) that Murray, or his legal team, will have raised the possibility of a counter libel suit from Murray on the basis of a claim of anti-Semitism. But that was never the focus of the actual libel claim from Simons about Murray, which was about being accused of lying.

Rubbish - where was Murray going to get the money for a counter libel suit? He was threatened with bankruptcy just trying to defend himself against this libel action because he did not have the money for lawyers in order to mount a legal defence.

That was the context of this thread - that libel actions are a way for rich people to shut up poor people.

[ProfessorDavey]

You can keep making whatever assertions you like. Section 5 of the claim and the preceding paragraph that underline the Words Complained Of show that the claim includes serious harm to reputation from the accusations of lying and the accusation that Simons was on a witch hunt of critics of Israel by trying to smear them as anti-semitic.

But there is no claim of harm for the latter, the claim of harm is exclusively restricted to the former (i.e. lying) - libel requires both that the comment is not demonstrated to be true and also is harmful. Accordingly the 'smear them as anti-semitic' is not part of the libel as the claimant never suggests any harm.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

But there is no claim of harm for the latter, the claim of harm is exclusively restricted to the former (i.e. lying) - libel requires both that the comment is not demonstrated to be true and also is harmful. Accordingly the 'smear them as anti-semitic' is not part of the libel as the claimant never suggests any harm.

I think there is a claim of harm for the latter. Para 9.1, which you quoted, refers to the lying. Para 9.3 (which for some reason labels 2 separate paragraphs) says - serious harm was caused, or was likely to be caused, by the Words Complained Of.

The Words Complained Of are more than just the accusation of lying.

[ProfessorDavey]

I think there is a claim of harm for the latter. Para 9.1, which you quoted, refers to the lying. Para 9.3 (which for some reason labels 2 separate paragraphs) says - serious harm was caused, or was likely to be caused, by the Words Complained Of.

The Words Complained Of are more than just the accusation of lying.

section 9.3 referred to the gravity of the 'sting'  (as described in 9.1), linked to the scale of the publication (i.e. national tv) - the 'sting' is described in 9.1 referred to as 'As a journalist and broadcaster, there are few more damaging allegations than of concocting evidence or deliberately lying about the source of a quotation.'

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

section 9.3 referred to the gravity of the 'sting'  (as described in 9.1), linked to the scale of the publication (i.e. national tv) - the 'sting' is described in 9.1 referred to as 'As a journalist and broadcaster, there are few more damaging allegations than of concocting evidence or deliberately lying about the source of a quotation.'

Yes the sting described in 9.1 includes concocting evidence or deliberately lying about the source of a quotation as you said. The concocting evidence allegation refers to Simons' evidence of Murray's alleged anti-Semitism masquerading as anti-Zionism.  And para 9.3 then refers to the gravity of the sting caused by the Words Complained Of by the Claimant in the last section of para 4.

The concocting evidence of anti-Semitism masquerading as anti-Zionism allegation refers to the following Words Complained Of that Murray said on TV "What I do think is happening is that people like myself, who are critical of the State of Israel.... When we point out what is happening to the Palestinians, we are now accused - quite falsely - of anti-Semitism, because there is a campaign to stop people fighting for the rights of Palestinians because they are terrified of this witch-hunt, that people like myself - who have fought racism my entire life - come on the media and get accused of making anti-Semitic comments which we didn't make. We really are in the middle of a very, very difficult witch-hunt in the UK."

[ProfessorDavey]

Yes the sting described in 9.1 includes concocting evidence or deliberately lying about the source of a quotation as you said. The concocting evidence allegation refers to Simons' evidence of Murray's alleged anti-Semitism masquerading as anti-Zionism.  And para 9.3 then refers to the gravity of the sting caused by the Words Complained Of by the Claimant in the last section of para 4.

The concocting evidence of anti-Semitism masquerading as anti-Zionism allegation refers to the following Words Complained Of that Murray said on TV "What I do think is happening is that people like myself, who are critical of the State of Israel.... When we point out what is happening to the Palestinians, we are now accused - quite falsely - of anti-Semitism, because there is a campaign to stop people fighting for the rights of Palestinians because they are terrified of this witch-hunt, that people like myself - who have fought racism my entire life - come on the media and get accused of making anti-Semitic comments which we didn't make. We really are in the middle of a very, very difficult witch-hunt in the UK."

Yes I understand that very well.

But Simons' lawyers do no claim any harm from the part relating to the smear of anti-sematism. And if they aren't claiming any harm then they are in effect accepting there is no libel.

And actually the outcome demonstrates that in terms of the acceptance on each side. If as you claim Simons was claiming libel on 2 grounds:

1. That Murray accused him of lying when that was not true

2. That Murray accused him of smearing those who oppose Israel as bing anti-semitic

Then Murray would have had to accept both that Simons didn't lie (which he did) and that Simons was not involved in a smear campaign to stop people criticising Israel - which he didn't. His only retraction was that he lied - why - because that was the only statement that Simons lawyers claimed was libellous (i.e. untrue AND caused harm).

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Yes I understand that very well.

But Simons' lawyers do no claim any harm from the part relating to the smear of anti-sematism. And if they aren't claiming any harm then they are in effect accepting there is no libel.

And actually the outcome demonstrates that in terms of the acceptance on each side. If as you claim Simons was claiming libel on 2 grounds:

1. That Murray accused him of lying when that was not true

2. That Murray accused him of smearing those who oppose Israel as bing anti-semitic

Then Murray would have had to accept both that Simons didn't lie (which he did) and that Simons was not involved in a smear campaign to stop people criticising Israel - which he didn't. His only retraction was that he lied - why - because that was the only statement that Simons lawyers claimed was libellous (i.e. untrue AND caused harm).

The concoction of evidence accusation in 9.1  relates to the claim that Simons had evidence that Murray was anti-Semitic. He did not have evidence of that and he stated that in the settlement when he stated that Murray was not anti-Semitic.

The outcome demonstrates nothing and Murray does not have to accept anything - the terms of the settlement are up to the parties to decide what they are prepared to accept and not accept. Simons decision to settle rather than pursue Murray in court for damages would probably have been based on various considerations - the costs of continuing, the likelihood of proving serious harm and balancing that against an assessment of what costs and damages are likely to be recovered by the side that wins.

Possibly some kind of pressure was put on Simons to settle - since Murray just repeated what he had said all along within a few days of the TV debate - that Simons was not a liar. Murray knew he would be unable to justify this accusation in court. Being called a liar is normally considered defamation by the courts unless the defendant can prove the statement he called a lie was false and prove the claimant knew it was false when he made it.

Or Simons may have thought that the whole ordeal would have been enough to put some people off from publicly criticising Israel or defending Palestinian rights, without having to go through the time, effort and costs of a court case. That Simons has stated that Murray is not an anti-Semite leaves Murray free to continue criticising Israel on his blog and on TV.

[ProfessorDavey]

The concoction of evidence accusation in 9.1  relates to the claim that Simons had evidence that Murray was anti-Semitic. He did not have evidence of that and he stated that in the settlement when he stated that Murray was not anti-Semitic.

The outcome demonstrates nothing and Murray does not have to accept anything - the terms of the settlement are up to the parties to decide what they are prepared to accept and not accept. Simons decision to settle rather than pursue Murray in court for damages would probably have been based on various considerations - the costs of continuing, the likelihood of proving serious harm and balancing that against an assessment of what costs and damages are likely to be recovered by the side that wins.

Possibly some kind of pressure was put on Simons to settle - since Murray just repeated what he had said all along within a few days of the TV debate - that Simons was not a liar. Murray knew he would be unable to justify this accusation in court. Being called a liar is normally considered defamation by the courts unless the defendant can prove the statement he called a lie was false and prove the claimant knew it was false when he made it.

Or Simons may have thought that the whole ordeal would have been enough to put some people off from publicly criticising Israel or defending Palestinian rights, without having to go through the time, effort and costs of a court case. That Simons has stated that Murray is not an anti-Semite leaves Murray free to continue criticising Israel on his blog and on TV.

Blimey you really are in conspiracy theory mode aren't you.

So Simons somehow concocted the whole situation and threw in allegations of libel in order to ensure that critics of Israel were silenced and the public wouldn't hear those kinds of views again.

One slight problem in your argument - whenever there is a high profile libel case the view expressed are amplified massively - people who might never have seen to debate, read the blog, seen the article see about it in the mainstream media.

So actually the very worst thing you can do if you want to stop the public hearing one type of view is to try to shut it up via libel.

Two examples - one mentioned previously the other new.

First - the Simon Singh case - how many people would have read his original article - very few - how many came to know about his views via the libel case - huge numbers.

The second - perhaps the most famous of all - the so-called McLibel case involving a information sheet distributed by London Greenpeace activists on London streets - how many people would have actually seen the leaflet - virtually none. How many people came to know of their views due to the libel case - millions.

The point about a libel case is that it doesn't silence the views, quite the reverse it requires the views to be disseminated time and time again as the proceedings proceed.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Blimey you really are in conspiracy theory mode aren't you.

So Simons somehow concocted the whole situation and threw in allegations of libel in order to ensure that critics of Israel were silenced and the public wouldn't hear those kinds of views again.

One slight problem in your argument - whenever there is a high profile libel case the view expressed are amplified massively - people who might never have seen to debate, read the blog, seen the article see about it in the mainstream media.

So actually the very worst thing you can do if you want to stop the public hearing one type of view is to try to shut it up via libel.

Two examples - one mentioned previously the other new.

First - the Simon Singh case - how many people would have read his original article - very few - how many came to know about his views via the libel case - huge numbers.

The second - perhaps the most famous of all - the so-called McLibel case involving a information sheet distributed by London Greenpeace activists on London streets - how many people would have actually seen the leaflet - virtually none. How many people came to know of their views due to the libel case - millions.

The point about a libel case is that it doesn't silence the views, quite the reverse it requires the views to be disseminated time and time again as the proceedings proceed.

I was talking about the possible reasons why Simons decided to settle rather than continue with the libel case in court. I was not arguing that there was a conspiracy to make accusations on TV in order to engineer a libel case.

But you’re right about the massive amplification - a possible reason for Simons settling out of court could be that the court case might publicise Israel’s illegal settlement building, land appropriation, and it’s racism and human rights violations against the Palestinians.

[jeremyp]

It's logical to discuss a defence to a claim

We have discussed the defence. The idea that Craig's accusation was true has been found wanting. Personally, I think he had a better defence based on the lack of serious harm.

[jeremyp]

But you’re right about the massive amplification - a possible reason for Simons settling out of court could be that the court case might publicise Israel’s illegal settlement building, land appropriation, and it’s racism and human rights violations against the Palestinians.

No, I doubt if that had anything to do with it. Of course, it does seem to be what you want it to be about.