Friday, June 15, 2007
Labour MP Wins Libel Case
I have to say I am astonished that Labour MP Martyn Jones won his libel case against the Mail on Sunday. Having seen some of the court reports it is a bewildering verdict by the jury. Jones was awarded £5,000 in damages and costs. Background HERE and HERE. There is certainly a view in the newspaper world that libel cases should be avoided at all costs as the public delight in finding against newspapers. One could say that it's perhaps their own fault, but in this particular case I feel that justice has not been done. Better stop there I think!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
32 comments:
The jury believed a man with a beard and bowtie over a man in a Police uniform?
We are all doomed.
Fair do's, well done for posting this. As someone who worked with Martyn Jones occasionally I couldn't believe he would behave as reported, but the fact that the Mail on Sunday had a personal beef with him might give them a reason to deliberately exaggerate. I hope this is a lesson to gossip columnists: you can't rely on "poetic licence" and getting the fundamental details of the story correct (ie Martyn Jones said something slightly rude in front of a security officer who didn't recognise him) if you've gone way over the top in what you reported.
Hard to sympathise with Martyn Jones. Even harder to sympathise with the Mail on Sunday.
I don't need to identify myself on this comment because you should know who I am!
This also seems to be what motivated the Jury in the Tommy Sheriden case.I think the public are right to delight in hammering the press. Apart from anything else the press have often won such cases purely by the fact that they can spin out such cases & drive up expenses. It is a sign of good taste that the public prefer politicians to journalists. If politicians are people with dubious morals journalists are prostitutes.
They may also have suspected that if a newspaper editor or owner had got into such a squabble it would not only not have ben blown out of proportion, it wouldn't have been published. This may not be the law but I think it is justice.
Well done Martyn! I wonder how much the MoS had paid the gossip for his story? Just goes to show, you shouldn't listen to the stuff...
But as they say on 'just a minute' - "He hasn't won himself any friends in the audience with that one..!"
We weren't in the courtroom, it is not for us to judge. We should respect the decision of the jury.
Unlike Iain, I'm not astonished at all by this verdict. Anyone who comes into contact with the Mail on Sunday's "journalist" Simon Walters should know he is legendary for just two things at Westminster - inventing stories and making up quotes.
He works on the "they'll never sue" basis. Glad to see the short little runt has finally been caught out!
Perhaps the pompous twit Martyn Jones (just feast on the pathetic nature of the 'Martyn' spelling, let alone the bow tie)will use his 'damages', poor diddums, to repay the taxpayer and his constituents for the time he spent on his 'case' when he should have been doing the job that the poor bloody taxpayer (PBT) pays him for. As an excercise in sheer idle futility this prertty much takes the cake. Clearly someone with too much time on his hands. Perhaps his constituency party will now see him for the waste of space he undoubtedly is and spare him the trouble of being 'recognised' after the next election.
What no link to the actual source of the story?
Why are you astonished, Iain?
The MoS made a specific allegation as to the precise words it claims Jones used and then, with the burden of proof in its court, appear to have relied on a single piece of uncorroborated testimony to establish the truth of their allegation, their only line of defence.
The only astonishing thing is any of this is that MoS didn't settle or, at least, post a nominal £10k bond with the court, which would stiffed Jones for his legal costs and made his victory a phyrric one.
Found it in some Welsh paper.
Funny that in libel cases juries fix guilt and damages....it is time that this libel racket was ended and the courts freed up for real cases instead of the vanities of the rich globally who can rent a stage with judges in costume for their own exhibitionism - like Roman Polanski - who did not even attend court
Archer and Aitken are recent examples of how the burden of proof favours the shits of this world.
Jones would have accepted an offer of £10k I think. So he wouldn't have got stuffed.
But those who think this was not the right result should brush up on their understanding of defamation law before publishing more.
They couldn't prove it. It was damaging. Bingo.
Isn't this the same crappy journalist that maliciously attacked Owen Barder? Can we look forward to some further action to clip this sloppy and malevolent hack's wings.
David Boothroyd "the fact that the Mail on Sunday had a personal beef with him". Too little information. Evidence please?
And it's not just gossip columnists 'who make things up'. Come to think of it, it's not just columnists full stop. Any way we can verify some of the more outrageous comments emanating from Downing Street?
Doesn't the fact remain that he hadn't shown his pass, thinking he was much too important for that. Perhaps he'll act like the rest of us in future - reluctantly and grudgingly show it, but show it just the same.
Oooh, it's a conspiracy! Yes, and not only is it in my top ten, I even published it!
Iain, the reporting of libel cases by the media isn't always as fair as it ought to be. For example, Ham would have been cross-examined by Jones' QC. Anyone who is cross-examined by Ronald Thwaites makes some some damaging admissions. Ham did. Did you read about those on the PA feed? Suspect not.
Also, Jones offered to settle for £4995 before suing (this came up when costs were discussed-as he beat his offer the Mail will be stuffed on costs). This was, curiously, not mentioned by the media.
I do know a bit about defamation law, and can say that over-egging the pudding would make you vulnerable. As Thwaites said, "MP says sh1t, apolologises" is not a story-but they added to it a bit to make it one and now are paying.
Iain - apologies, but whatever the truth of all this we all know you are so far up Simon's arse you can see through his nose....
I have long argued that the law of defamation needs reform. A successful claimant should be content with a finding in his favour. Damages for "loss of reputation" are as outmoded as the damages which husbands used to recover against co-respondents and jilted females used to recover for breach of promise.
This simple reform would probably kill the defamation industry stone dead, and a good thing too.
At least he'll be able to go green now, by using the money to buy some solar powered revolving bow ties. The solar cells could be concealed in his beard.
Colin @ 12.34 pm: "just feast on the pathetic nature of the 'Martyn' spelling"
Taking a pop at other people because of the names their parents gave them. What a petty small mind you have!
Yes, it's a good job Iain is moderating for obscenity.
And yes, I was christened Martyn, and I'm proud of it.
David Boothroyd: "Their research droid blew a gasket on seeing that Martyn Jones' researcher was Steve Jones, and identified him as Martyn Jones' son."
From that cock-up - and the subsequent correction (and retraction by the MoS?) - you deduce that the Mail on Sunday had a 'personal beef' with Jones?
OK. Please define 'personal beef'. Thanks
Commonsnark, I had to delete your comment because it is potentially libellous.
Iain, what do you mean, "potentially libellous"? Do you have a permanent legal team, constantly advising you on these issues when every comment comes up for assessment?
Clearly not, but I do have a brain, which I occassionally deploy - particularly if I think there is a chance of being sued.
If suing for defamation was "killed" as Trumpeteer wants what is to prevent newspapers making up anything they want about anybody. They pretty nearly do already.
Perhaps instead of money the paper should be required to provide as much space as prominently as the original article for the victim to express his views about the paper's dishonesty. That would be both fair & amusing.
'I hope this is a lesson to gossip columnists: you can't rely on "poetic licence" and getting the fundamental details of the story correct'
The security officer testified that Jones did what the MoS alleged, so either he was lying under oath or Jones was.
I know which one I'd pick.
Post a Comment