McAlpine v Bercow [2013] EWHC 1342 (QB) (24 May 2013)

McAlpine v Bercow [2013] EWHC 1342 (QB) (24 May 2013)

The Tweet, in its natural and ordinary meaning, implied that the Claimant was a paedophile guilty of sexually abusing boys in care, by linking his name to the widely reported allegations in the Newsnight report and media coverage. The words 'innocent face' were ironical, and the context led a reasonable reader to infer guilt. The Defendant's Tweet provided the missing name to the public controversy, thus repeating the allegation with the Claimant's identity.

Citation
[2013] EWHC 1342
Parties
Claimant: The Lord McAlpine of West Green; Defendant: Sally Bercow
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 May 2013
Procedural Posture
Libel Action / Preliminary Issue on Meaning and Defamatory Nature of the Tweet
Outcome
The Tweet was defamatory of the Claimant in its natural and ordinary meaning.
Legal Topics
Libel, Social Media Publication, Defamatory Meaning, Innuendo, Repetition Rule
Defamation Media Law Libel Social Media Publication Defamatory Meaning Innuendo Repetition Rule

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 5 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Lord McAlpine of West Green

Claimant

Sally Bercow

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Libel Action / Preliminary Issue on Meaning and Defamatory Nature of the Tweet

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Tweet published by the Defendant was defamatory of the Claimant
  2. 2 What is the natural and ordinary meaning of the Tweet
  3. 3 Whether the Tweet bore an innuendo meaning

Ratio Decidendi

The Tweet, in its natural and ordinary meaning, implied that the Claimant was a paedophile guilty of sexually abusing boys in care, by linking his name to the widely reported allegations in the Newsnight report and media coverage. The words 'innocent face' were ironical, and the context led a reasonable reader to infer guilt. The Defendant's Tweet provided the missing name to the public controversy, thus repeating the allegation with the Claimant's identity.

Court Disposition

The Tweet was defamatory of the Claimant in its natural and ordinary meaning.