Bukovsky v Crown Prosecution Service [2016] EWHC 1926 (QB) (28 July 2016)

Bukovsky v Crown Prosecution Service [2016] EWHC 1926 (QB) (28 July 2016)

The words complained of did not bear the meanings attributed by Mr Bukovsky. Their natural and ordinary meaning was that Mr Bukovsky was to be charged with offences of making indecent photographs of children contrary to section 1 of the Protection of Children Act 1978, possessing indecent photographs of children contrary to section 160 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, and possession of a prohibited image contrary to section 62 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009; and that the evidence in support of such charges was sufficiently convincing to justify a prosecution, and it was in the public interest to do so. The ordinary reasonable reader would not infer personal involvement or presence...

Citation
[2016] EWHC 1926
Parties
Claimant: Vladimir Bukovsky; Defendant: Crown Prosecution Service
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 July 2016
Procedural Posture
Libel, Misfeasance in Public Office, Breach of Human Rights Act / Preliminary Issue Trial on Meaning of Words in Press Release
Outcome
Claimant's case on meaning rejected; preliminary issue decided in favour of the defendant.
Legal Topics
Libel, Misfeasance in Public Office, Breach of Human Rights Act, Meaning in Defamation, Serious Harm, Interim Declaration of Falsity
Defamation Criminal Law Human Rights Libel Misfeasance in Public Office Breach of Human Rights Act Meaning in Defamation Serious Harm +1 more

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 3 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Vladimir Bukovsky

Claimant

Crown Prosecution Service

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Libel, Misfeasance in Public Office, Breach of Human Rights Act / Preliminary Issue Trial on Meaning of Words in Press Release

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the natural and ordinary meaning of the CPS Charging Announcement?
  2. 2 Did the words bear the defamatory meanings alleged by the claimant?

Ratio Decidendi

The words complained of did not bear the meanings attributed by Mr Bukovsky. Their natural and ordinary meaning was that Mr Bukovsky was to be charged with offences of making indecent photographs of children contrary to section 1 of the Protection of Children Act 1978, possessing indecent photographs of children contrary to section 160 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, and possession of a prohibited image contrary to section 62 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009; and that the evidence in support of such charges was sufficiently convincing to justify a prosecution, and it was in the public interest to do so. The ordinary reasonable reader would not infer personal involvement or presence...

Court Disposition

Claimant's case on meaning rejected; preliminary issue decided in favour of the defendant.

Orders

  • Summary judgment application on serious harm not determined.
  • Application for interim declaration of falsity declined.