{"id":248812,"date":"2021-05-28T12:48:19","date_gmt":"2021-05-28T07:18:19","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=248812"},"modified":"2021-05-28T12:49:50","modified_gmt":"2021-05-28T07:19:50","slug":"united-kingdom-jeremy-corbyn-libel-action-whether-his-words-were-statement-of-a-fact-or-an-opinion","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/05\/28\/united-kingdom-jeremy-corbyn-libel-action-whether-his-words-were-statement-of-a-fact-or-an-opinion\/","title":{"rendered":"United Kingdom | Jeremy Corbyn libel action \u2013 whether his words were statement of a fact or an opinion"},"content":{"rendered":"

UK Court of Appeal<\/strong> : The three-judge bench of Sir Geoffrey Vos, Master Of The Rolls; Dame Victoria Sharp, President Of The Queen’s Bench Division and Lord Justice Warby dismissed the appeal filed by Jeremy Corbyn against the decision made at the preliminary trial for libel action. Richard Millett \u2013 a blogger, observer, reporter and commentator sued Jeremy Corbyn MP over remarks he made on a televised interview about Zionists. The allegations against Corbyn are of anti-Semitism when he committed while he made the comments.<\/p>\n

The facts of the case[1]<\/a> are that during a wide-ranging interview on the Andrew Marr Show (“the Programme”), first broadcast by the BBC on 23 September 2018, Andrew Marr asked Mr Corbyn if he was an anti-Semite. Mr. Corbyn was asked first about an East London mural. He was then shown a recording of a speech he made in 2013, in which he referred to “Zionists” who “don’t understand English irony”. Mr. Marr suggested this was “A strange thing to say”. The words complained of were spoken by Corbyn in answer to Marr’s suggestion. Corbyn said that he had been in a meeting in the House of Commons and that the “two people I referred to had been incredibly disruptive”. Corbyn said that “the police wanted to throw them out of the meeting”. When the Palestinian Ambassador to the United Kingdom, Manuel Hassassian, had spoken, the people had been quiet. However, according to Corbyn, “they came up and were really, really strong on him afterwards and he was quite upset by it. I know Manuel Hassassian quite well. And I was speaking in his defence\u2026\u201d Later on, Corbyn said that \u201cthe two had been very, very abusive to Manuel. Very abusive. And I was upset on his behalf from what he’d \u2013 he’d spoken obviously at the meeting but also the way he was treated by them at the end of it. And so I felt I should say something in his support. And I did\u201d.<\/em><\/p>\n

At the trial of preliminary issues, Justice Saini found that the statement referred to Millett. He also ruled on the natural and ordinary meaning of the words and found that the meaning was a statement of fact and defamatory of Millett at common law. Corbyn appealed the decision, arguing that the meaning (which he did not dispute) was not a statement of fact, but honest opinion (as set out in Section 3 of the Defamation Act 2013) and that it was not defamatory.<\/p>\n

COURT OF APPEAL DECISION<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n

Defence of Honest opinion<\/strong><\/p>\n

Justice Warby, giving the lead judgment, noted that Section 3 of the Defamation Act provides the defence of honest opinion.<\/p>\n

“3 Honest opinion<\/em><\/p>\n