|
No Records Found
| Id |
|
| Title |
|
| Date |
|
| Country |
ENGLAND and WALES (Europe)
UNITED KINGDOM (Europe)
| |
|
| Adjudication body |
|
| Territorial scope |
|
Domestic
| |
|
| Case number |
|
| Main themes |
Defamation
| |
|
| Type of expression |
Political humour
Sexual, LGBTQ+, or gender humour
Social media
| |
|
| Branch of law |
Civil Law
| |
|
| Decision direction |
|
Contracts expression
| |
|
| Outcome |
Civil penalties / Damages awarded
| |
|
| Outcome note |
|
| Relation to previous decision |
|
N/A
| |
|
| Speaker |
Gender_Woman
Public figure
| |
|
| Target |
Gender_Man
Politician, public officer, or public body
Public figure
| |
|
| Link to case |
|
| Link to analysis |
|
| Related decisions |
|
| Summary |
Following a number of media reports about serious allegations of child sexual abuse (CSA) against an unnamed ‘leading Conservative politician from the Thatcher years’, Sally Bercow (a high profile public figure and wife to the Speaker of the House of Commons with over 56,000 followers) tweeted
“Why is Lord McAlpine trending? *Innocent face*".
Lord McAlpine was a former deputy Chairman of the Conservative Party and a close aide to Margaret Thatcher and complained that the tweet damaged his reputation and caused him ‘considerable distress and embarrassment’. Bercow denied that the words were defamatory and all parties accepted that the allegations of CSA were not about Lord McAlpine.
The court stated that the meanings of words for the purposes of defamation are of two kinds. There may be a natural and ordinary meaning and there may be an innuendo meaning. Para [47] The Court found that the words were defamatory given the words ‘innocent face’ would imply that the question was insincere and inferred that Bercow had knowledge of the identity of the politician.
In a joint statement in open court Lord McAlpine of West Green v Bercow [2013] 10 WLUK 618 - 21 October 2013 Bercow apologised to Lord McAlpine and agreed to pay him damages and his costs. She undertook never to repeat the allegations and withdrew them unreservedly. This was the second major case in the UK dealing with defamation on Twitter.
It should be noted that the victim of abuse had made a mistake in identifying his abuser and it was not Lord McAlpine.
| |
|
|
|
Processing......