A tweet by Commons Speaker’s wife Sally Bercow about Lord McAlpine was libellous, the High Court in London ruled today.
Mrs Bercow faces legal bills running to tens of thousands of pounds after losing a court battle over her tweet in November last year which read: ‘Why is Lord McAlpine trending? *Innocent face*’
A Newsnight investigation aired two days earlier accused a senior Tory politician of allegedly abusing boys at a Welsh care home – but did not give a name. However false rumours circulated on Twitter that Lord McAlpine was involved.
Libellous: Sally Bercow’s tweet about Lord McAlpine during the child abuse storm was libellous, the High Court ruled todayLord McAlpine, a former Conservative Party treasurer denied all the allegations made by Newsnight and the alleged victim later retracted his account of life at Bryn Estyn care home in the 1770s and 1980s.
The BBC later settled a libel claim with the peer, paying damages of £185,000 plus costs. It was thought Lord McAlpine was seeking damages of up to £50,000 from Mrs Bercow.
However, she denied her tweet was libelous and took the case to court. Lawyers for the peer said it pointed ‘the finger of blame’ at him during a media frenzy.
The former Celebrity Big Brother contestant will now pay Lord McAlpine undisclosed damages and faces a legal bill which runs into tens of thousands of pounds.
He added that, if he was wrong about that, he would find that it bore an innuendo meaning to the same effect.
It was not necessary for a reader to have any prior knowledge of Lord McAlpine as a leading politician of the Thatcher years in order to link the tweet naming him with the Newsnight allegations as the tweet identified him by his title.
Mr Justice Tugendhat added: ‘In my judgment, the reasonable reader would understand the words “innnocent face” as being insincere and ironical.
‘There is no sensible reason for including those words in the tweet if they are to be taken as meaning that the defendant simply wants to know the answer to a factual question.
‘The reader would reasonably infer that Mrs Bercow had provided “the last piece in the jigsaw”.’
Suffering: Lawyers for Tory peer Lord McAlpine said he had suffered ‘unnecessary pain’ as a result of the court case while Mrs Bercow said the litigation had been a ‘nightmare’
Couple: Commons Speaker John Bercow is understood to have disapproved of his wife taking part in reality TV showsThe court heard that Mrs Bercow promptly tweeted her apologies, provided letters apologising for the distress caused and making clear that the underlying allegations were untrue, and made an offer to settle the case which still stood.
In a statement today, Mrs Bercow insisted she did not post the tweet with ‘malice’ and did not intend to libel Lord McAlpine.
She added that she ‘very much regrets’ making the online comment and said the months of legal battle have been ‘a nightmare’.
‘I was being conversational and mischievous, as was so often my style on Twitter,’ she added.
‘I very much regret my tweet, and I promptly apologised publicly and privately to Lord McAlpine for the distress I caused him.
‘I also made two offers of compensation. Lord McAlpine issued proceedings and the last few months have been a nightmare. I am sure he has found it as stressful as I have. Litigation is not a pleasant experience for anyone.
‘Today’s ruling should be seen as a warning to all social media users. Things can be held to be seriously defamatory, even when you do not intend them to be defamatory and do not make any express accusation. On this, I have learned my own lesson the hard way.’
She said she was ‘surprised and disappointed’ by the court ruling but will accept it as as the end of the matter.
Publicity: Mrs Bercow has regularly courted controversy including posing in the window of Speaker’s House
Fame: In 2011, Mrs Bercow defied opposition from her husband to take part in Celebrity Big Brother alongside celebrity photographer Darryn LyonsHowever lawyers for Lord McAlpine said the court case had caused ‘unnecessary pain and suffering’ to the 71-year-old peer.
Andrew Reid of RMPI Solicitors said: ‘The apologies previously received from Mrs Bercow did not concede that her tweet was defamatory. Clearly she must now accept this fact.
‘The failure of Mrs Bercow to admit that her tweet was defamatory caused considerable unnecessary pain and suffering to Lord McAlpine and his family over the past six months.
‘With knowledge of the judgment, I am pleased to be able to say that Mrs Bercow has finally seen sense and has accepted an offer of settlement, which Lord McAlpine made back in January.
‘Mr Justice Tugendhat’s judgment is one of great public interest and provides both a warning to, and guidance for, people who use social media.
‘It highlights how established legal principles apply to social media, and how the courts take account of the particular way in which social media operates when reaching decisions on whether publications are defamatory.
Read more: Daily Mail
Just to let folks elsewhere in the world be aware, that the outcome of this case is wrong. The decision itself was on meaning only and Sally Bercow decided not to proceed to a damages hearing. The litigation however seemed to be managed in such a way where the court would award something against Bercow if she lost on meaning. The argument which was never considered and there was no apparent provision to look at this – was the ‘abuse of process’ argument and over-compensation.
If the case had been heard over one hearing and ALL the necessary considerations in libel reviewed together, the case should have been dismissed on the basis that the involvement of Sally Bercow in the context of the totality of the publications was small and the cost to pursue the case outweighed any further vindication available. The claimant received half a million £££s in other settlements for the same allegations.
For one reason or another – poor case management or a poor defence team, these crucial factors were not addressed as in other less prominent libel cases. Legal precendent on over-compensation and proportionality were either ignored which is quite shocking when there are other similar cases in which was included.
Predictable decision on meaning perhaps (but still unfair) but shocking outcome overall. As they say – there is one law for the rich……….