Rowland v Mitchell

Rowland v Mitchell

The court found, on the balance of probabilities, that Mr Mitchell did speak the words alleged or something so close to them as to amount to the same, including the word 'pleb'. The police officers' accounts were consistent, credible, and supported by contemporaneous notes and conduct. There was no credible evidence of fabrication or collusion. Mr Mitchell's denials were undermined by inconsistencies and the objective evidence.

Parties
Claimant: Andrew Mitchell; Defendant: News Group Newspapers Limited; Claimant: Toby Rowland; Defendant: Andrew Mitchell
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 November 2014
Procedural Posture
Civil (defamation) / Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Libel, Qualified Privilege, Credibility of Witnesses, Public Order Act, Police Conduct
Defamation Tort Law Libel Qualified Privilege Credibility of Witnesses Public Order Act Police Conduct

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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Andrew Mitchell

Claimant

News Group Newspapers Limited

Defendant

Toby Rowland

Claimant

Andrew Mitchell

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (defamation) / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Andrew Mitchell used the words alleged by PC Rowland, including 'pleb', in an exchange at Downing Street
  2. 2 Whether the police officers fabricated or colluded to invent the words attributed to Mr Mitchell
  3. 3 Whether the publication of the words was defamatory

Ratio Decidendi

The court found, on the balance of probabilities, that Mr Mitchell did speak the words alleged or something so close to them as to amount to the same, including the word 'pleb'. The police officers' accounts were consistent, credible, and supported by contemporaneous notes and conduct. There was no credible evidence of fabrication or collusion. Mr Mitchell's denials were undermined by inconsistencies and the objective evidence.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed