Appeal against strike out of claims for defamation and malicious falsehood. The defendant had given evidence to the Culture Media and Sport Select Committee of the House of Commons with material highly critical of the claimant, a member of FIFA’s executive. That evidence was protected by parliamentary priviege, but the claimant said that the defendant was responsible for later references to that evidence in the course of a review by the English Football Association. The claimant now appealed against an order striking out his claim.
Held: The appeal failed. Article 9 prohibited an examination in this action of the respondent’s assertions: ‘the issue of Article 9 protection . . cannot be concluded in favour of the speaker merely by a finding of fact . . that Article 9 would be violated by enquiry into the speaker’s state of mind outside Parliament on the ground that that would also constitute enquiry into his state of mind when he spoke within Parliament. Such a state of affairs might readily be proved in a case like Lord Abingdon, Creevey or Buchanan, as Lord Bingham suggested . . But in such cases, as Lord Bingham made plain, an identity of motive or purpose as between the speaker’s utterances within and outside Parliament will not justify Article 9 protection. It will be roundly held that the claim (against the speaker) is ‘directed solely to the extra-parliamentary republication’ . . and it is only the speaker’s state of mind on that later occasion that matters.’ and . . ‘Article 9 will not bite merely because there is a public interest, which he ought reasonably to serve, in the speaker’s repeating or referring to what he had earlier said in Parliament. The later, extra-Parliamentary occasion might be quite remote from the earlier utterance. The public interest in his repeating what he had said might be different from the whys and wherefores of the Parliamentary occasion. When speaking in Parliament, he might have no reason to apprehend that he might be required (or think himself obliged) in the public interest to repeat on a later occasion what he had said. In short the integrity of the legislature’s democratic process may not need the protection of Article 9 at all.’
Laws, Tomlinson, Rafferty LJJ
[2014] EWCA Civ 179, [2014] EMLR 17, [2014] 3 All ER 36, [2014] 1 QB 839, [2014] WLR(D) 98, [2014] QB 839, [2014] 2 WLR 1228
Bailii, WLRD
Bill of Rights 1689 9
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Pepper (Inspector of Taxes) v Hart HL 26-Nov-1992
Reference to Parliamentary Papers behind Statute
The inspector sought to tax the benefits in kind received by teachers at a private school in having their children educated at the school for free. Having agreed this was a taxable emolument, it was argued as to whether the taxable benefit was the . .
Appeal from – Makudi v Baron Triesman of Tottenham In London Borough of Haringey QBD 1-Feb-2013
makudi_triesmanQBD2013
The claimant, former chairman of the Thailand Football Association, claimed in defamation against the defendant who had been chairman of the English Football Association. The defendant asked the court to strike out the claim, saying that some of the . .
Cited – Prebble v Television New Zealand Ltd PC 27-Jun-1994
(New Zealand) The plaintiff, an MP, pursued a defamation case. The defendant wished to argue for the truth of what was said, and sought to base his argument on things said in Parliament. The plaintiff responded that this would be a breach of . .
Cited – Rex v Creevey Esq MP 1813
A statement made out of Parliament is not to be protected by its absolute privilege even if what is said simply repeats what was said inside the House.
A member of the House of Commons may be convicted upon an indictment for a libel in . .
Cited – Stopforth v Goyer 1978
(High Court of Ontario) A claim was made for defamation in remarks made by the defendant about the plaintiff to media representative who were present in parliament, just after he left the Ottawa chamber at the conclusion of the question period. The . .
Cited – Hutchinson v Proxmire 26-Jun-1979
(United States Supreme Court) The petitioner had been funded by the state to carry out research on aggression in certain animals, particularly monkeys. He complained of criticism of his work decsribing it as wasteful.
Held: Efforts to . .
Cited – Office of Government Commerce v Information Commissioner and Another Admn 11-Apr-2008
The Office appealed against decisions ordering it to release information about the gateway reviews for the proposed identity card system, claiming a qualified exemption from disclosure under the 2000 Act.
Held: The decision was set aside for . .
Cited – Jennings v Buchanan PC 14-Jul-2004
(New Zealand) (Attorney General of New Zealand intervening) The defendant MP had made a statement in Parliament which attracted parliamentary privilege. In a subsequent newspaper interview, he said ‘he did not resile from his claim’. He defended the . .
Cited – Byrne v Deane CA 1937
A notice had been displayed on a golf club notice board. The court considered whether this constituted publication for defamation purposes.
Held: Greene LJ said: ‘Now on the substantial question of publication, publication, of course, is a . .
Cited – Seray-Wurie v The Charity Commission of England and Wales QBD 23-Apr-2008
The defendant sought an order to strike out the claimant’s allegations of defamation and other torts. The defendants claimed qualified privilege in that the statements complained of were contained in a report prepared by it in fulfilment of its . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Defamation, Constitutional
Updated: 30 November 2021; Ref: scu.521627
