Late last year, a website named IntelligenceUK.com published an article in explosive and provocative terms alleging that some key figures in the UK Civil Justice system, including some very high profile Judges, the Attorney General, and members of the Government Legal Department (GLD), were/are corrupt.
The article goes as far as to name some specific individuals and makes allegations against them, such as claims that:
- One of the Judges referred to as an ‘oath breaking, lying, cheating rat’;
- A member of the GLD ‘committed perjury and falsified orders…’;
- The GLD and one of the Judges referred to are ‘abusing the public’s trust and tax-payers funds, colluding with likeminded racketeers…’; and
- A number of the Judges referred to ‘perverted the course of justice’.
Whilst the article is littered with references to being able to prove the allegations referred to, there is very little by way of substantiation of the allegations contained in the article. There is however a clue at the approach of the GLD to the allegations contained in the article itself in that the article makes reference to the blocking of all emails from the writer of the article by the Attorney General and the GLD. The GLD has further published an article on its website, presumably in response to this article (although, for understandable reasons, it does not specifically refer to it), confirming that:
“The Government Legal Department has been made aware of a derogatory article published online which discusses legal action taken by GLD for a client.
“The article identifies, by name, one of our lawyers… GLD wish to make it clear that the claims made in the article about [their employee] are baseless, false and abusive. We believe the article has been published as a direct result of [their employee’s] work on issues such as civil proceedings orders and from having direct contact with individuals in regards to Court applications.
“GLD is an outstanding legal organisation, committed to the highest standards of service and professionalism that wholly supports its trusted employees.”
The article appears to have been written following the conclusion of a raft of legal proceedings brought by Mr Millinder against various parties and a number of legal proceedings restraining orders issued against Mr Millinder. Such a restraining order would prevent a Claimant from issuing any proceedings without the permission of the Court. The final of those applications was made by the Attorney General against Mr Millinder. For a further order restraining Mr Millinder from instituting further proceedings. In granting the order, Mr Justice Swift stated:
“Mr Millinder’s references to “corruption” are no more than general abuse. He has made similar allegations of fraud against many judges who have heard applications he has issued. A fair-minded observer would recognise this, conclude there was no substance to it at all, and attach no significance to it. Strictly speaking, Mr Millinder’s 5 April 2021 application falls within the scope of the 2020 GCRO. It should not have been issued without the permission of the relevant judge. Be that as it may, and considered on its own terms, it raises no matter of any substance and should be refused.”
Are the comments in the article defamatory?
What is not clear is whether the GLD will now let matters rest or will seek to take matters further. The allegations made in the above-referred article are clearly defamatory, as they allege that various high-profile professionals, such as Judges and lawyers, have committed serious criminal offences, such as fraud, perjury, perverting the course of justice and racketeering.
Section 1 of the Defamation Act 2013 (2013 Act) does however confirm that no claim shall be brought unless serious harm to the complainant can be established. Given the comments of Mr Justice Swift above, there is clearly a question over whether any damage to the individuals referred to in the article could have occurred in the minds of ‘fair-minded observers’.
Should the GLD bring proceedings for defamation against the writer of the offending article, the Defendant may seek to avail himself of the defence in section 4 of the 2013 Act, which relates to publications on matters of public interest. If the Defendant sought to run such a defence, it is doubtful that it would succeed, as section 4 requires the party deploying the defence to demonstrate the following:
“(3) If the statement complained of was, or formed part of, an accurate and impartial account of a dispute to which the claimant was a party, the Court must in determining whether it was reasonable for the defendant to believe that publishing the statement was in the public interest disregard any omission of the defendant to take steps to verify the truth of the imputation conveyed by it.
(4) In determining whether it was reasonable for the defendant to believe that publishing the statement complained of was in the public interest, the Court must make such allowance for editorial judgement as it considers appropriate.”
Comment
The article is very unlikely to be viewed as an impartial account and, given Mr Justice Swift’s comments about previous accusations levelled by Mr Millinder against various professionals, the content of the article is further likely to not be viewed by a presiding Judge as being content that it was reasonable for the Defendant to believe was in the public interest to publish.
How can we help
Kevin Modiri is a Partner in our expert Dispute Resolution team.
Should you have any queries regarding the subjects discussed in this article, please do not hesitate to contact Kevin or another member of the team in Derby, Leicester, or Nottingham on 0800 024 1976 or via our online enquiry form.
Contact us