Thompson v James & Anor

In a libel claim arising from a public authority’s response to online criticism, the court held that persistent unsupported allegations of corruption, perjury and misconduct could amount to an unlawful campaign of harassment, intimidation and defamation. Freedom of expression protected criticism and protest, including criticism of public officials, but did not protect knowingly false allegations made to injure reputation. An individual officer or member of a local authority was not barred from suing for libel merely because the allegations concerned public functions. The court declined to determine the lawfulness of the Council’s ban on filming meetings because the issue was unsuitable for determination on the evidence before it. The claimant’s claim failed on truth and, alternatively, qualified privilege. The counterclaim succeeded on three publications and failed on two.

The claimant sued the Chief Executive of Carmarthenshire County Council and the Council over a letter responding to an online open letter about the claimant’s removal from a Council meeting after filming proceedings. The letter referred to her family’s earlier complaints about planning decisions, alleged harassment and defamation, and her complaint to the police that a Council officer had assaulted her and attempted to steal her phone.

The Chief Executive brought a Part 20 counterclaim concerning five blog postings which referred to a purported Council “slush fund” and, in one posting, compared him to Pinocchio. The issues included meaning, truth, honest opinion, qualified privilege, Articles 8 and 10, and whether the counterclaim was an abuse of process.

1. Claim dismissed. The words complained of bore meanings that the claimant had conducted an unlawful and vindictive campaign of harassment, intimidation and defamation, and had knowingly made false statements to the police about a Council officer. They also conveyed that she had breached the Council’s filming prohibition on several occasions, although that meaning was not itself defamatory.
2. The defendants proved the truth of the first two defamatory meanings. The claimant had made knowingly false allegations of assault and attempted theft against the officer, amounting to an attempt to pervert the course of justice. Her persistent unsupported allegations against Council officers constituted a targeted campaign of harassment, intimidation and unlawful defamation. Freedom of expression did not extend to knowingly false allegations made with intent to injure another.
3. The court deliberately refrained from deciding whether the Council’s prohibition on filming was lawful. The parties had not supplied the evidence required for an important public-law issue, which might properly be determined by judicial review. The question could therefore be left undecided without affecting the result.
4. The defendants would alternatively have established qualified privilege. The Council and its Chief Executive had a sufficient interest and duty to explain publicly why the police had been called and to answer attacks on the Council and its officers. The response was no wider than the claimant’s own publications and was necessary and proportionate in the circumstances. There was no unlawful interference with Article 8.
5. The argument that the Part 20 claim was an abuse because the defendant acted as a local authority officer failed. Derbyshire County Council v Times Newspapers Ltd established that individuals could sue even though a governmental body could not. The indemnity provided to the defendant did not itself make the counterclaim abusive.
6. The counterclaim succeeded in respect of the postings dated 28 February, 22 March and 6 April 2011. The honest-opinion defence failed because the first two postings lacked a factual foundation and the claimant did not honestly hold the opinion expressed; the 6 April posting was defamatory and unsupported. The counterclaim failed in respect of the postings dated 1 June and 14 July 2011 because they were honest comment with a factual foundation. Damages were assessed at £25,000, including £5,000 aggravated damages.