Sally Berkow

[Sqad]

Found guilty.

That's all i have at the moment........

[friedgreentomato]

good

[murraymints]

Does anyone really care ??

[humbersloop]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/may/24/sally-bercow-tweet-libelled-lord-mcalpine

[Sqad]

LOL...

[jake-the-peg]

Yes - interesting decision

I'm not sure if anybody has been found guilty of libel before not for actually saying something or repeating something libellous but for drawing attention to something libellous someone else was saying

[Octavius]

Her Tweet was libellous and she has settled with McAlpine to make an undisclosed payment to charity.

Not exactly gripping stuff.

[ToraToraTora]

so, is she going down?

[jake-the-peg]

You missed

'*innocent face*' from that post Tora

[mushroom25]

jake, her tweet was libellous by virtue of the repetition rule:-

"It is no defence to an action for defamation for the defendant to prove that he was merely repeating what he has been told" (see Stern v Piper [1997] QB 123).

[ludwig]

// He decided that her tweet "provided the last piece in the jigsaw" and allowed readers to wrongly link McAlpine with the allegation of child sexual abuse. "It is an allegation of guilt. I see no room on these facts for any less serious meaning," Tugendhat added. //

I wouldn't agree it's an allegation of guilt. As jtp says, It's more an allegation that he was the person being gossiped about on Twitter.

[baza]

she should be taken to the jungle and left there with a mobile phone without a battery. Stupid woman.

[flump1]

Good, she might learn to keep quiet now, silly woman.

[albaqwerty]

stuupid witch.
As for sentencing?
I reckon 6 months and out in 2 days.
Law and justice are 2 different things.

[jake-the-peg]

She didn't repeat it though did she?

[mushroom25]

not as such, no. but the argument runs thus:-

Her inclusion of the phrase *innocent face* told readers that she was being "insincere and ironical", not asking a straightforward question as she had argued. It was therefore reasonable to infer that she meant Lord McAlpine was "trending because he fits the description of the unnamed abuser"
The tweet was therefore, by implication, a repetition of the accusations of sexual abuse broadcast on Newsnight.

QED.

[jake-the-peg]

Which kind of goes back to my first point

Is this a departure?

Has anybody before been prosecuted for libel When they had not repeated the Libel but simply referred to it and expressed or implied an opinion?

It would be a bit someone on here saying ' x is a paedophile' and my posting on another thread have you seen y's post - 'I think he's right'


I suspect in the past the law would have concentrated on the original offender - but in this case there was a certain safety in numbers and rather than attempt to find and prosecute the original offender a high profile figure was selected as an example

[viv38]

Never could stand this woman.

[mushroom25]

where the repetition rule has previously been invoked, it's usually the press that's been the target - the most notable recent case being the Blairs' former nanny, her book, their injunction and her subsequent action agains Associated Press. I can't find an example of an individual being so targeted (unless of couse someone knows different), so this case may well set a sort of precedent - or a warning example to tweeters who follow celebrities.

[Mattk]

'Why is xxxxx trending? * innocent face *'

Surely that could also be read as someone asking a genuine question perhaps sarcastically?

[jake-the-peg]

Yes - I too think it's a precident - certainly I'd have agreed if it had been breaking an injunction - she'd definately have been bang to rights!

I do think they key thing here was malicious intent I suspect that may have played quite a part in the consideration perhaps that may feature in future legislation