, , , ,

(not satire – it’s UK libel law)

Apparently something rather odd is afoot in the Lord McAlpine libel suit currently being heard against Sally Bercow in the High Court.

I have no legal background or grounding in law myself, but I’m told by those who have that it looks as though legal precedent is either being overlooked or is being strangely ignored.

According to case law, a previous judgement in Smith V ADVFN (another internet libel case involving multiple defendants) shows clearly that if the guidance in the case is followed, Lord McAlpine’s action should be doomed.

Put simply as possible, the judgement says that compensation in libel cases should be considered as a whole and not on an individual case by case basis – in order to avoid what the judgement calls ‘overcompensation’.

Here’s the relevant part of the judgement:

any distress and hurt feelings suffered would have to be compensated by reference to the totality of the publications and not on the artificial basis of the sum total of the impact upon his feelings by one individual publication; otherwise there would obviously be a significant risk of overcompensation.

Considering McAlpine has already received over half a million pounds in compensation for exactly the same “distress and hurt feelings suffered”, it would seem he and his lawyers are proceeding clearly on a case by case basis in order to receive yet more compensation – and for some reason they are being allowed by the UK legal establishment to get away with it.

Although the judgement in the McAlpine/Bercow case is yet to be given – it’s expected some time this week – the question is why has the suit not already been dismissed by the judge as an abuse of process on the basis of the above judgement?

This comes on top of the Solicitors Regulation Authority bizarre inaction after McAlpine’s solicitors were accused of breaking the solicitor’s code of practice by indulging in what is known as ‘speculative invoicing’.

Here’s my previous blog post about that:

Are McAlpine’s lawyers breaking the solicitors’ code of practice?

If the judgement goes against Ms Bercow – with no reference to the above judgement – is it a case of one libel law for Lords of the Realm – and another for the rest of us?

Or is the UK legal establishment making an attempt to reassert its authority over what it sees as a little bit too much in the way of free speech on social media for comfort?

What do you think?


Here’s a link to Smith V ADVFN – the preliminary hearing.

And a link to Smith V ADVFN –  the full judgement.


Related articles by Tom Pride:

Savile wasn’t ‘hiding in plain sight’. It was a cover-up.

Justice? McAlpine gets hundreds of thousands in compensation while child victims get next to nothing

I hope Lord McAlpine isn’t going to sue me for saying this?

Are McAlpine’s lawyers breaking the solicitors’ code of practice?

Why are UK police helping McAlpine sue twitter users when he’s a tax exile in Italy?

Lord McAlpine in his own damning words – The New Machiavelli?

It was the police – not the BBC – who wrongly named Lord McAlpine in abuse allegations

How did Cyril Smith get away with paedophilia? By threatening tweeters and bloggers with libel!

Child abuse scandal can of worms – just who is Daily Mail reporter David Rose?

High level child abuse cover-up? Why has Theresa May barred a US journalist from the UK?


Please share this article – publicising these issues will make sure nothing can be swept under the carpet. If you click on any of these buttons below, you can share this article with other people. Thanks: