Well-known journalist John Ware, who ran an episode on BBC’s flagship current affairs programme Panorama on the perceived growth of antisemitism in the Labour Party, has won a defamation suit against Paddy French, who criticised Ware’s programme in an article he published on his website proclaiming to expose “rogue journalism”.
Due to French’s contemptuous conduct during the proceedings, Ware was awarded £90,000 aggravated damages by the Court, £40,000 more than what he originally claimed for.
John Ware v Paddy French [2022] EWHC 3030 (KB)
Background
In the case, John Ware v Paddy French, French published an article online and a pamphlet, criticising Ware’s programme as “a piece of rogue journalism” and that Ware was motivated by bias and hostility towards the Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn MP. French also accused Ware intending to harm Labour’s chances in the general election in Dec 2019 to the advantage of the Conservative Party.
Ware thus sued French for defamation and claimed damages of £50,000 and an injunction to stop French from further publication of those allegations.
The proceedings
At an initial trial to ascertain the meaning of French’s article, it was found to be defamatory of Ware, in that it alleged that:
“Mr Ware is a rogue journalist who had engaged in dirty tricks aimed at harming the Labour Party’s chances of winning the General Election by authoring and presenting an edition of Panorama in which he presented a biased and knowingly false presentation of the extent and nature of antisemitism within the party, deliberately ignoring contrary evidence”.
The Court also found that the article contained statements of facts, as opposed to statements of honest opinion, which is a defence under section 3 of the Defamation Act 2013.
Following this ruling, French filed and served his Defence in April 2021, based on the defences of truth (section 2 of the Defamation Act 2013) and of public interest (section 4 of the Defamation Act 2013). As a result, Ware and his legal team had extensive work done to respond to the truth defence.
In June 2022, French decided to withdraw the truth defence and served an Amended Defence in September 2022. The Court, therefore, ordered French to pay Ware’s costs of £15,000 in responding to the truth defence. However, French had since then continued to maintain publicly and extensively that his defamatory allegations were true and that he could prove their truth.
Subsequently, in October 2022, the French decided not to defend the claim altogether and not to appear at trial.
The Court, on Ware’s application, allowed the trial to proceed without the French’s presence and struck out the French’s Amended Defence. However, in order to succeed, Ware would still need to establish that French’s statements were defamatory and that serious harm has been done to his reputation.
The Court was satisfied that French’s article is defamatory and had inflicted serious harm to Ware’s reputation as a journalist, given the wide dissemination of the article online reaching a huge audience and of the pamphlet to recipients in the journalist circle targeted to harm Ware’s career.
The Court’s evaluation of French’s conduct during the proceedings
Having concluded that French is liable for defamation, the Court proceeded to address the issue of damages. The Court considered that French’s conduct during the proceedings served to aggravate the level of damages. That conduct included:
- The maintenance of the truth defence from April 2021 until June 2022;
- The cynical portrayal that his withdrawal of the truth defence was due to the Court’s unfavourable ruling in the meaning of the article in question debarring him from pleading the truth defence; and
- The continued public maintenance that his defamatory allegations were true whilst he had already withdrawn his truth defence.
The Court strongly affirmed French’s conduct in the proceedings to be one of contempt.
Having considered the seriousness of the allegations against Ware, French’s conduct being intentionally calculated to harm Ware, extensive publication of the allegations and French’s aggravating conduct during the proceedings, the Court awarded Ware total damages of £90,000, far exceeded the £40,000 claimed for, and a permanent injunction to prevent the defamatory statements being published again by French.
Comment
The case illustrates the Court’s disapproval of defendants’ running of an unsustainable defence of truth or the disingenuous withdrawal of the defence of truth, only to continue inflicting harm on the claimant outside of the proceedings.
Apart from disingenuous withdrawals, the Court also repeated the ruling in the case of Riley v Sivier [2022] EWHC (QB) that a defendant’s continued maintenance of truth after his defence of truth has been dismissed by the Court is also an aggravating conduct that allows the Court to award aggravating damages.
The defence of truth is notoriously difficult to establish at trial and requires extensive evidence, and may sometimes be confused with the requirements of the defence of an honest opinion. This confusion may lead to the defence being struck out, and a defence of truth improperly pleaded may also attract severe costs and consequences. It is therefore important that, if you anticipate a claim of defamation against you, expert legal advice is duly sought so that you can prepare your defence properly.
How can we help?
Kevin Modiri is a Partner in our expert Dispute Resolution team, specialising in charity law, civil disputes, insolvency, inheritance disputes, data breach claims and defamation claims.
If you need any advice concerning 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