Mitchell v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2014] EWHC 3590 (QB) (31 October 2014)

Mitchell v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2014] EWHC 3590 (QB) (31 October 2014)

Expert evidence in phonetics and field of vision/trajectory analysis is admissible and reasonably required to resolve the central factual disputes, given its potential probative value. Evidence of previous similar incidents is relevant and probative of Mr Mitchell's attitude and propensity, and its probative value outweighs any prejudice or collateral burden; thus, it should be admitted except for certain incidents lacking probative value. Irrelevant passages in witness statements relating solely to damage are to be excluded for the preliminary issues trial.

Citation
[2014] EWHC 3590 (QB)
Parties
Claimant (hq13 D01052) / Defendant (hq13 D05940): Andrew Mitchell MP; Defendant (hq13 D01052): News Group Newspapers Limited; Claimant (hq13 D05940): Toby Rowland
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
31 October 2014
Procedural Posture
Libel Actions (consolidated) / Pre Trial Review (ptr) Judgment on Evidentiary Applications
Outcome
Applications granted in part and refused in part as set out in the judgment.
Legal Topics
Libel, Similar Fact Evidence, Expert Evidence, Case Management, Admissibility of Evidence
Defamation Civil Procedure Evidence Libel Similar Fact Evidence Expert Evidence Case Management Admissibility of Evidence

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Andrew Mitchell MP

Claimant (hq13 D01052) / Defendant (hq13 D05940)

News Group Newspapers Limited

Defendant (hq13 D01052)

Toby Rowland

Claimant (hq13 D05940)

Procedural Posture

Libel Actions (consolidated) / Pre Trial Review (ptr) Judgment on Evidentiary Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether expert evidence in phonetics and field of vision/trajectory analysis should be admitted
  2. 2 Whether evidence of previous similar incidents involving Andrew Mitchell should be excluded as inadmissible similar fact evidence
  3. 3 Whether certain passages in witness statements should be excluded as irrelevant or inadmissible

Ratio Decidendi

Expert evidence in phonetics and field of vision/trajectory analysis is admissible and reasonably required to resolve the central factual disputes, given its potential probative value. Evidence of previous similar incidents is relevant and probative of Mr Mitchell's attitude and propensity, and its probative value outweighs any prejudice or collateral burden; thus, it should be admitted except for certain incidents lacking probative value. Irrelevant passages in witness statements relating solely to damage are to be excluded for the preliminary issues trial.

Court Disposition

Applications granted in part and refused in part as set out in the judgment.

Orders

  • Permission granted to both sides to adduce expert evidence in phonetics (Professors French and Liberman) and field of vision/trajectory analysis (Professor Whitaker and Mr Postlethwaite), with provision for exchange of reports and expert meetings.
  • Evidence of previous similar incidents admitted except for six allegations lacking probative value; nine disputed incidents to be admitted.