More on Robert Halfon, UK Universities, and Libyan Money

In a post earlier today, I collected Robert Halfon’s Parliamentary statements and some of the reporting which preceded the announcement this afternoon that Liverpool John Moores University has formally threatened him with defamation proceedings.

In this post I want to bring in some further materials, and look at whether a potentially serious curtailment of Parliamentary Privilege is threatened here.

Let’s start by looking again at Liverpool John Moores University’s statement:

As can be seen from the above, the wild press and media speculation about the University receiving huge sums of money from the Libyan Government (originally emanating from a Conservative MP making unjustified statements under the protection of the House of Commons rules) are complete fantasy. In particular, we have no reason to be ashamed of these activities. They have been conducted scrupulously with good partners aiming to improve the situation of the Libyan people and with the full support and encouragement of the UK Government and associated agencies.
LJMU statement on activities in Libya

So what exactly were those “…unjustified statements under the protection of House of Commons rules”? At the time, Halfon appears to have made only one reference to Liverpool John Moores University in Parliament: in a Parliamentary Question asked on 3 March 2011, which we’ll come to shortly.

Prior to this date, Robert Halfon had written regularly about Libya on his personal blog, drawing on his family connection to the country.

In a post dated 22 February 2011, he wrote about his grandfather’s experience:

Events in Libya hold special meaning for our family, as my late grandfather (an Italian Tripolitanian Jew), was one of the many thousands of Jews in Libya who had their property confiscated and businesses appropriated by the Gadaffi regime.
…
Given what he -and thousands of others experienced -I think my grandfather would have been surprised that Gadaffi has remained in power for so long.
…
But, most of all, given his deep attachment to England, he would have never expected that in 2009, one of the most famous and prestigious British universities -the London School of Economics (LSE), would take £1.5 million in “blood money” from Gadaffi’s son in order to fund a “North African Research Centre”.
My Grandfather, Libya and the LSE Blood Money

On 27 February, Halfon posted the transcript of a live webchat he had conducted for the Sunday Times. Several of the questions related to Libya and the LSE, notably this one:

10:20
Mark
Hi Robert, seems like Britain and the world is finally starting to react to the situation in Libya. Why did we appease a dictator there for so long? We have become cowards in the West since Iraq
Robert Halfon
I agree with your sentiments. We appeased Gaddaffi for far too long. My Grandfather was one of the Jews in Libya who was forced to flee because Gadaffi took all the Jews’ homes and businesses. He came to England eventually, after a short spell in Italy. Some of our Universities, like the LSE,have been prostituting themselves to Middle eastern despots for blood money.
Anthony Giddens praise for Gadaffi was a disgrace. Similarly, for far too long, our Foreign office and businesses like BP, have been appeasing Gadaffi in the name of realpolitik. We need a radical reappraisal of our foreign policy.
Online with the Sunday Times

The following day, Halfon was at Prime Minister’s Questions:

Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con): My grandfather was one of thousands of Jews who had to leave Libya because of Gaddafi’s appropriation of Jewish businesses and homes, and he came to this country because of its democracy. He would have been shocked to have seen not only the close relations between the last Government and Gaddafi, but the acceptance by our distinguished universities, particularly the London School of Economics, of more than £1 million from Gaddafi. Will my right hon. Friend take steps to ensure that such a scandal never happens again?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend speaks with great power. What I have said about relations with Libya is that, while of course it was right to try to bring that country in from the cold, the question is whether parameters should have been put on the relationship. I think that it is for everyone to ask what agreements they reached. I heard the head of the London School of Economics on the radio this morning trying to justify one such agreement. Let us hope that at least the money that the LSE has can be put to a good use.
Hansard, 28 February 2011

Halfon serves on the Advisory Board of “Student Rights”, which describes itself as:

…a non-partisan group dedicated to supporting equality, democracy and freedom from extremism on university campuses…set up in June 2009 as a reaction to increasing political extremism and marginalisation of vulnerable students on campus.

They have been particularly vociferous in attacking the London School of Economics’ financial links with Libya and with the Gaddafi family, opening a petition against LSE’s actions, and publicising Halfon’s statements on the issue.

In a post dated 1 March 2011, Student Rights drew attention to Halfon’s comments at Prime Minister’s Questions:

Yesterday, Student Rights Advisory Board member Robert Halfon MP asked the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, David Cameron, about the London School of Economics and the Libyan blood money that they accepted. £300,000 has been donated to the LSE by the Gaddafi Foundation, as part of a £1.5m promise. This followed Saif al-Gaddafi receiving his PhD from the LSE, over which questions are now being raised.

On 3 March 2011, Halfon asked the Parliamentary Question which appears to have been the first time he referred specifically to Liverpool John Moores University:

Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con): Has my right hon. Friend read my early-day motion 1515?

That this House expresses grave concerns about the extent of funding from Middle Eastern dictatorships for UK universities, including the donations to the London School of Economics (LSE) by the Libyan regime; notes that an estimated 75 million was given to the Oxford Centre for Islamic Studies by 12 Middle Eastern rulers, including King Fahd of Saudi Arabia; further notes that 8 million was given to the University of Cambridge by Prince Alwaleed bin Talal of Saudi Arabia, to finance a new research centre for Islamic studies in 2008, and that he gave a further 8 million to Edinburgh University for the same purpose; further notes that 9 million was given to the Centre for Middle Eastern Studies at the LSE by the United Arab Emirates Foundation, and that 5.7 million was given to the LSE by the Kuwait Foundation for the Advancement of Sciences, to establish the Kuwait Programme on Development, Governance and Globalisation in the Gulf States in 2007; and therefore calls on the Government to establish much stricter guidelines around donations to UK universities, and to put a stop immediately to donations from oppressive Middle Eastern dictatorships with a terrible record on human rights.
My right hon. Friend may also have seen early-day motion 1486, which I tabled.

The motions condemn the extensive financial links between Colonel Gaddafi and at least two British universities, the London School of Economics and Liverpool John Moores, and the links between the progressive left and Gaddafi. Does he not agree that this scandal is akin to that of the aristocrats who appeased and sympathised with fascism in the 1930s, and will he arrange for an urgent statement on, and an independent inquiry into, the funding of British universities by middle eastern despots?

Sir George Young: I understand my hon. Friend’s concern, although I am not sure I would go quite as far as he did in drawing that parallel. Universities, however, are autonomous institutions. As a charity, a university must set its own standards for the acceptance of donations, subject to guidance from the Charity Commission. The LSE has expressed regret at the reputational damage caused by its association with the Gaddafi name, and has announced that the sum received will be used to finance a scholarship fund supporting students from north Africa.
Hansard, 3 March 2011

Interestingly, neither of the Early Day Motions which Halfon had then proposed on this topic refer specifically to Liverpool John Moores University.

GOVERNMENT OF LIBYA FUNDING FOR THE NORTH AFRICAN RESEARCH PROGRAMME AT THE LONDON SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS
That this House condemns the 1.5 million accepted by the London School of Economics (LSE) from the government of Libya in 2009 to fund a North African Research Programme; believes that although the money came from the International Charity and Development Foundation chaired by Colonel Gadaffi’s son, Seif Al-Islam, this does not make it any cleaner; calls on the LSE to donate the money to suitable charities to assist victims of the Gadaffi regime; notes that universities from across the UK have accepted hundreds of millions of pounds from Middle Eastern dictatorships in recent years; and therefore calls on the Government to strengthen its scrutiny of our higher education institutions, and in particular the London School of Economics.
Early Day Motion 1486

MIDDLE EASTERN FUNDING FOR UK UNIVERSITIES
That this House expresses grave concerns about the extent of funding from Middle Eastern dictatorships for UK universities, including the donations to the London School of Economics (LSE) by the Libyan regime; notes that an estimated 75 million was given to the Oxford Centre for Islamic Studies by 12 Middle Eastern rulers, including King Fahd of Saudi Arabia; further notes that 8 million was given to the University of Cambridge by Prince Alwaleed bin Talal of Saudi Arabia, to finance a new research centre for Islamic studies in 2008, and that he gave a further 8 million to Edinburgh University for the same purpose; further notes that 9 million was given to the Centre for Middle Eastern Studies at the LSE by the United Arab Emirates Foundation, and that 5.7 million was given to the LSE by the Kuwait Foundation for the Advancement of Sciences, to establish the Kuwait Programme on Development, Governance and Globalisation in the Gulf States in 2007; and therefore calls on the Government to establish much stricter guidelines around donations to UK universities, and to put a stop immediately to donations from oppressive Middle Eastern dictatorships with a terrible record on human rights.
Early Day Motion 1515

On 10 March Halfon asked this question in Parliament:

Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con): Will the Leader of the House find time for an urgent debate on links between middle eastern dictators and our universities, following my early-day motions 1562 and 1563?

[That this House believes that there should be a real financial incentive for British universities not to accept donations from foreign dictatorships, especially regimes in the Middle East with a poor record on human rights; and therefore calls on the Government to introduce a mechanism whereby for every £1 that a university receives in donations from a totalitarian or despotic regime, such a Libya, £1 shall be withdrawn from that university in public subsidy.]

As well as the London School of Economics case, it has emerged that Durham university has done deals with the Iranian regime and that the Muslim research centre at my former university, Exeter, was funded by the Muslim Brotherhood. Does my right hon. Friend agree that if a university takes blood money it should lose an equivalent amount of public subsidy?

Sir George Young: As I said to my hon. Friend last week, universities are autonomous organisations and accountable for what they do. I will draw his comments to the attention of my ministerial colleagues at BIS. As he knows, we will have a debate on the middle east at this time next week, when he may want to amplify his remarks.
Hansard, 10 March 2011

Neither of the Early Day Motions referred to Liverpool John Moores University: 1562 is quoted above; 1563 refers exclusively to the University of Durham.

Later that day, Halfon posted to his blog. That entry currently reads as follows:

There are reports this evening that Colonel Gadaffi may be on the verge of taking back Libya. I have no way of verifying if this is true. But, one thing is for sure: If the Dictator does succeed, the sebacks to democratic development will be enormous.

Not only will all the opposition be vanquished – and then massacred – citizens across the Middle East will be wary of overthrowing their repressive regimes. The light of democracy – and the chances of freedom – will be put out, possibly for a generation.

The West have only themselves to blame. Instead of confronting Gadaffi, for the past few years he was appeased and even feted by far too many countries, including the UK,Now, there is hand-wringing about whether or not to implement a no-fly zone. By the time a decision is made, Gadaffi could have retaken control. The free world should be doing all it can to facilitate Gadaffi’s removal.
If Gadaffi wins, the West will be to blame

The post originally continued for several more paragraphs: Halfon’s Parliamentary question of that day was reproduced, preceded by a paragraph from Halfon summarising it. This further text has since been deleted from the post.

The following day, at 1236, Halfon posted this tweet:

I uploaded a YouTube video — Stop the Blood Money http://youtu.be/EznE1UolgWs?a

This video was subsequently embedded in the blog post from the previous day. It has since been removed from Youtube, and the embedding removed from the blog post.

At 2241, Halfon posted about his family experiences again:

Don’t forget that Gaddafi and Co think the country belongs to them, so pillaging money from the Libyan people is seen as perfectly just – and a normal state of affairs. My grandfather would have been deeply shocked at the British establishment’s appeasement of 3Gaddafi, the release of the Lockerbie bomber al Megrahi and the LSE blood money.
My father thinks he shook hands with Gadaffi

It seems reasonable to hypothesise that the removal of the last half of Halfon’s blog post of 10 March 2011, and of the video he posted to Youtube the following day, are related to the defamation proceedings now threatened against him.

If this is correct, it is potentially worrying – because the deleted section of Halfon’s blog post reproduced a parliamentary question, a statement made under parliamentary privilege. Moreover, that question does not refer at all to Liverpool John Moores University – as we’ve seen, only Halfon’s parliamentary question of 3 March does so.

Most of the videos posted to Robert Halfon’s Youtube channel are clips of his statements in the House of Commons. This raises the question: was the deleted video similarly a clip of him asking the parliamentary question which has been redacted from his blog post of 10 March 2011 – a question which does not refer to Liverpool John Moores University?

To have any meaning in the modern world, parliamentary privilege cannot simply be about the freedom of MPs to speak in the Commons chamber; it must incorporate a freedom for people to be told what they have said. Today, that particularly means the ability of MPs and others to report proceedings – even if people object to what they say.

Robert Halfon – Comments made under Parliamentary Privilege

In a move which is certain to provoke much debate and comment, Liverpool John Moores University is reported to have threatened proceedings for defamation against the MP Robert Halfon (Conservative; Harlow).

Mr. Halfon has asked a series of questions about the issue of links between Libya and British universities over the past few weeks.

28 February 2011:

Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con): My grandfather was one of thousands of Jews who had to leave Libya because of Gaddafi’s appropriation of Jewish businesses and homes, and he came to this country because of its democracy. He would have been shocked to have seen not only the close relations between the last Government and Gaddafi, but the acceptance by our distinguished universities, particularly the London School of Economics, of more than £1 million from Gaddafi. Will my right hon. Friend take steps to ensure that such a scandal never happens again?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend speaks with great power. What I have said about relations with Libya is that, while of course it was right to try to bring that country in from the cold, the question is whether parameters should have been put on the relationship. I think that it is for everyone to ask what agreements they reached. I heard the head of the London School of Economics on the radio this morning trying to justify one such agreement. Let us hope that at least the money that the LSE has can be put to a good use.
Hansard, 28 February 2011

3 March 2011:

Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con): Has my right hon. Friend read my early-day motion 1515?

That this House expresses grave concerns about the extent of funding from Middle Eastern dictatorships for UK universities, including the donations to the London School of Economics (LSE) by the Libyan regime; notes that an estimated 75 million was given to the Oxford Centre for Islamic Studies by 12 Middle Eastern rulers, including King Fahd of Saudi Arabia; further notes that 8 million was given to the University of Cambridge by Prince Alwaleed bin Talal of Saudi Arabia, to finance a new research centre for Islamic studies in 2008, and that he gave a further 8 million to Edinburgh University for the same purpose; further notes that 9 million was given to the Centre for Middle Eastern Studies at the LSE by the United Arab Emirates Foundation, and that 5.7 million was given to the LSE by the Kuwait Foundation for the Advancement of Sciences, to establish the Kuwait Programme on Development, Governance and Globalisation in the Gulf States in 2007; and therefore calls on the Government to establish much stricter guidelines around donations to UK universities, and to put a stop immediately to donations from oppressive Middle Eastern dictatorships with a terrible record on human rights.
My right hon. Friend may also have seen early-day motion 1486, which I tabled.

The motions condemn the extensive financial links between Colonel Gaddafi and at least two British universities, the London School of Economics and Liverpool John Moores, and the links between the progressive left and Gaddafi. Does he not agree that this scandal is akin to that of the aristocrats who appeased and sympathised with fascism in the 1930s, and will he arrange for an urgent statement on, and an independent inquiry into, the funding of British universities by middle eastern despots?

Sir George Young: I understand my hon. Friend’s concern, although I am not sure I would go quite as far as he did in drawing that parallel. Universities, however, are autonomous institutions. As a charity, a university must set its own standards for the acceptance of donations, subject to guidance from the Charity Commission. The LSE has expressed regret at the reputational damage caused by its association with the Gaddafi name, and has announced that the sum received will be used to finance a scholarship fund supporting students from north Africa.
Hansard, 3 March 2011

The following day, the FT reported Halfon’s comments (behind the paywall).

7 March 2011:

Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con): Following the scandal of the financial links between Libya and the London School of Economics and other British universities, will the Foreign Secretary examine what the previous Labour Government did to help facilitate those links? Does he not agree that the fish rots from the head down, and will he hold an independent inquiry to examine the previous Government’s insidious links with Libya?

Mr Hague: I am sure that there will be lessons to be learned from that. We are a little preoccupied with what is going on at the moment, but there will be a time to learn all the lessons from past relationships with some of the systems and regimes now being overthrown by their own people.
Hansard, 7 March 2011

The same day, Liverpool John Moores University issued a statement. It began:

In response to recent media reports, the LJMU position on our activities with Libya is that everything that we have done has been delivered transparently, at the invitation or with the encouragement and the support of the FCO (through the British Ambassador) and the British Council.
LJMU statement on activities in Libya

10 March 2011:

Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con): Will the Leader of the House find time for an urgent debate on links between middle eastern dictators and our universities, following my early-day motions 1562 and 1563?

[That this House believes that there should be a real financial incentive for British universities not to accept donations from foreign dictatorships, especially regimes in the Middle East with a poor record on human rights; and therefore calls on the Government to introduce a mechanism whereby for every £1 that a university receives in donations from a totalitarian or despotic regime, such a Libya, £1 shall be withdrawn from that university in public subsidy.]

As well as the London School of Economics case, it has emerged that Durham university has done deals with the Iranian regime and that the Muslim research centre at my former university, Exeter, was funded by the Muslim Brotherhood. Does my right hon. Friend agree that if a university takes blood money it should lose an equivalent amount of public subsidy?

Sir George Young: As I said to my hon. Friend last week, universities are autonomous organisations and accountable for what they do. I will draw his comments to the attention of my ministerial colleagues at BIS. As he knows, we will have a debate on the middle east at this time next week, when he may want to amplify his remarks.
Hansard, 10 March 2011

The same day, the Jewish Chronicle published an article in which it flagged the threats of legal action which had been made against Mr. Halfon over his comments.

16 March 2011:

Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con): Given the Lockerbie bomb and Gaddafi’s continuing murder of his own people, does the Prime Minister think it was wrong for British universities to sign deals with Libya, and wrong for the previous Government to help facilitate some of those contracts? Will he take steps to learn the lessons and ensure that that never happens again?

The Prime Minister: I think that there are lessons to be learned. As I have said, I think that it was right to respond to what Libya did in terms of weapons of mass destruction, but I do not think that the way in which that response was handled was right. Too much credulity was shown, particularly over issues such as that of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, the man who was convicted of the biggest mass murder in British history. Universities will also want to ask themselves, as they are doing, some pretty searching questions about what they did.
Hansard, 16 March 2011

All of the preceding comments fall squarely within the protection of Parliamentary privilege.

Mr. Halfon also made comments in The Times (behind the paywall), and it appears this article may have triggered the legal threat from the University.

[As an aside, I look forward to an application from LJMU to force News International to disclose the precise number of page views that the article received. Given the speculation over The Times' online readership, NI might want to fight that one.]

The Independent published an article today, which reported the results of Mr. Halfon’s freedom of information requests to a number of UK universities.

The Durham donations were uncovered by the Conservative MP for Harlow, Robert Halfon, who has started a one-man campaign to expose the links.

He says no university should accept money from Iran because of its repressive attitude towards homosexuals and its long-standing fatwa issued against the author Salman Rushdie.
Durham University accepted £11,000 donation from Iran

The sums involved are significant – today’s Independent article, for example, reports:

JMU was to earn £1.2m for delivering a degree programme at a Libyan university. It has defended the scheme as aiming to “improve the situation of the Libyan people”.

but there appears to be some question as to whether Liverpool John Moores University actually received the money involved. The University’s own statement suggests that it has only received £14,000, for “One 10 day course in Neonatal Intensive Care was delivered to 2 groups of 25 Doctors in November 2010.”

One might reasonably ask if the University will, once its legal fees are factored in, derive much benefit from the activities which Robert Halfon has challenged.

Threatening libel proceedings in these circumstances is a high risk strategy. Merely by doing so, the University has guaranteed attention for them, and Mr. Halfon is, of course, at liberty to use parliamentary privilege to make further statements about the matter. I’ve written before about what happens when lawyers try to intervene in that.

More to follow, no doubt.

Some upcoming #Liverpool culture…

A quick selection of Liverpool cultural bits and pieces I’m planning to do over the next few months.

Oedipus, Liverpool Playhouse, until 12 March 2011
This has almost come to the end of its run; I’m off to see the penultimate night on Friday. A new production by Steven Berkoff, it’s had excellent reviews from the local press, and less wonderful ones from the nationals.

Nam June Paik, FACT and Tate Liverpool, until 13 March
Also the last few days for FACT and Tate Liverpool’s joint exhibition of work by pioneering video artists. I must confess to being underwhelmed by the work on display – the claims of him as an inventor of media art founder for me with a look at the dates of his works, and a mental comparison of them to mainstream film and television of the time – but perhaps a final wander round will change my mind?

Mark Anstee: Removed and Destroyed Without Warning, until 27 March 2011
Airports for the Lights, Shadows and Particles – A survey exhibition by Jyll Bradley, until 1 May 2011
Two exhibitions I’ve not managed to see yet: Mark Anstee’s “3-D Drawing” of a submarine, which fills the Vide space at the Bluecoat, and Jyll Bradley’s combination of photography and sound.

A Collector’s Eye: Cranach to Pissarro, Walker Art Gallery, until 15 May 2011
Drawing on a single, private collection, this exhibition at the Walker Art Gallery provides an interesting look at a group of paintings linked primarily by the taste of their collector, rather than by a curator or theme.

‘Storyville’ : Rachael Howard and Melanie Tomlinson, 12 March to 7 May 2011
Showing at the Bluecoat Display Centre, this two person exhibition of textiles and metalwork looks to be worth a visit.

Old Master Drawings: Guercino, Rubens, Tintoretto, Lady Lever Art Gallery, until 2 May 2011
By all accounts a fine follow up to the Dürer exhibition which showed last year, this exhibition draws together a variety of drawings from the Lady Lever and Walker galleries.

Macbeth, Liverpool Everyman, 6 May to 4 June 2011
Move quickly if you want tickets to this – they’re selling quickly, due, no doubt, to the draw of the show’s stars, David Morrissey and Jemma Redgrave.

Opening of the Museum of Liverpool, 19 July 2011
The new Museum of Liverpool opens on the 100th anniversary of the Royal Liver Building – probably the city’s most iconic building. It’s five years since the old Museum of Liverpool Life closed to make way for the new building, and at a cost of £72m there’s a lot for National Museums Liverpool to prove. A successful launch will reinvigorate the Pier Head, and provide a boost to the redevelopment of the city centre.

What’s in your diary for the next few months?

Even judges can be libelled

It’s not often you’ll see a Senior Judge – a member of the Court of Appeal no less – listed as the plaintiff in a libel action, so the case of Sedley v Telegraph Media Group is immediately noteworthy.

Bringing such an action is an extremely unusual thing for such a senior judge to do. It is important to consider the context.

Yvonne Hossack, a solicitor advocate with a speciality in representing care home residents, became known for a series of high profile actions against local authorities seeking to close care homes. In 2009, two of the cases handled by Hossack came before the Court of Appeal – specifically before courts which included Lord Justice Sedley (for example, he dealt with a leave to appeal application in R (Watts) v Wolverhampton CC [2009] EWCA Civ 1168).

It is unarguable that Ms. Hossack was popular with many of her clients, and was undoubtedly unpopular with many of those she acted against. Neither of these facts is relevant to the merits of the cases she brought, nor to the manner in which she conducted them, but – as we shall see – was directly relevant to the way in which the media approached her.

In September 2009, Ms. Hossack faced charges of professional misconduct before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal. The six charges made against her related to the conduct of litigation, principally cases dealing with care home closures, dating back to 2006.

The first complaint at issue before the SDT related to a 2006 case in which Ms. Hossack acted against Sue Ryder Care on behalf of residents of one of its care homes. By an order of 16 May 2006, Mr. Justice Holman refused permission to apply for Judicial Review, and further directed that:

The statement of Philip Luxford dated 16th May and the statement of Yvonne Hossack dated 16th May and any other relevant papers from these proceedings be sent to each of the Professional Conduct Committees of the Law Society and the Legal Services Commission so that they may respectively, if they think fit, investigate any matters arising in particular from paragraphs 32 to 40 of Mr Luxford’s statement.

That referral led to allegations before the SDT of breaches of Rule 1 of the Solicitors Practice Rules 1990, and of breaches of confidentially – among the most serious “non-dishonesty” breaches of professional conduct a solicitor can be accused of.

It was not the only occasion on which Ms. Hossack was strongly criticised by the judges before whom she appeared. In connection with other allegations, the SDT quoted these 2007 comments from Mr. Justice Williams:

For reasons which will become apparent I do not propose to dwell in any detail upon whether or not the Claimants Solicitor Advocate engaged in behaviour which can properly be regarded as improper, unreasonable and/or negligent. I am completely satisfied that her behaviour throughout the proceedings before me was unreasonable and negligent, at the very least. I reach that conclusion for the reasons which are advanced in the written submissions put in on behalf of the Defendant and elucidated orally by Mr Knafler, Nothing that Ms Hossack had written or said persuades me that the thrust of Mr Knafler’s point should not be accepted. In short these proceedings were completely unnecessary. They were doomed to failure and a reasonably competent solicitor should have known as much.

In contrast to the views of some of the judiciary, the media appeared to view Yvonne Hossock as a crusading lawyer straight out of a TV drama.

In 2008, the Guardian’s David Brindle said:

To hundreds of families that have faced care home closures or cuts in care provision, solicitor Yvonne Hossack is a saintly figure. To government ministers, local authorities and other care providers, and, it now appears, powerful interests in her own profession, she is a vexatious litigant.

while the Daily Mail – rarely noted for sharing the Guardian’s line – offered this a year later:

There can be few crusaders as selfless in their pursuit of justice on behalf of the helpless as lawyer Yvonne Hossack.

Her campaign has consumed her life for seven years. It has also brought her to the brink of bankruptcy, jeopardised her health and exerted such intolerable pressure on her personal life that it has ended her 23-year marriage.

…

Yet this selfless woman has been the subject of an extraordinary witch hunt, which ended yesterday in the ‘miracle’ of her acquittal on charges of breaching rules of solicitors’ conduct.

On 18 September 2009 the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal held all but one of the charges not proven, and in respect of a single breach of Rule 16.01 (stated that “…it considered the breach as proved to be at the lowest level”. (Full SDT Findings here (PDF))

After the SDT’s decision, the further litigation followed, notably Hossack herself seeking unsuccessfully to bring judicial review proceedings against the Legal Services Commission in May 2010.

In delivering his judgement, Mr. Justice Owen found the application to be completely without merit, a finding which led him to consider a Civil Restrain Order (an order preventing an unsuccessful litigant from bringing further proceedings). In doing so, he recalled an earlier decision of Mr. Justice Collins in June 2006, who had similarly dismissed an application from Ms. Hossack to bring judicial review proceedings against the LSC. He had also found the application to be without merit, and expressly warned her that further litigation might be met with a CRO.

It is not clear whether a CRO was finally imposed following Mr. Justice Owen’s decision.

The LSC subsequently decided not to offer Hossacks Solicitors a legal aid contract, and Ms. Hossack brought further proceedings in response. Media reports again offered a particular view of her:

Yvonne Hossack, a solicitor who has specialised in fighting battles for the elderly and disabled, lost her appeal yesterday against a decision to deny her firm any legal aid contracts in the coming year.

It is feared that the decision could mean disaster for thousands of highly vulnerable people who do not have enough money to pay their legal costs, including residents of care homes who face eviction as local councils struggle to save money.
Underdogs’ solicitor locked out of legal aid

The headline – “Underdogs’ solicitor…” makes clear the newspaper’s take on the story. It bears noting that the decision to deny a particular firm a legal aid contract does not – necessarily – reduce the availability to legal aid for particular clients: it prevents them from using that particular firm on a legally aided basis. This is clearly not the impression given by the Independent’s article.

The Daily Telegraph had also previously written numerous articles about Ms. Hassock’s cases, one of which had led to the Daily Telegraph’s Simon Heffer giving evidence before the SDT:

158. Simon Heffer, Associate Editor and Columnist of the Daily Telegraph, read his statement dated 12th August 2009 to the Tribunal. In that statement he gave evidence as to the complaint by Hull City Council, the closure of the Sue Ryder Care Home in Snettisham and as to the allegation of bringing the profession into disrepute.

159. In cross examination, referring to the article published by the Daily Telegraph on 24th December 2007, Mr Heffer explained that as far as the readers of his paper had been concerned the Respondent had been attempting, as their solicitor, to represent the interests of three vulnerable people, in re-examination, Mr Heffer confirmed that he had not appreciated the technicality but he believed that the three men had not been moved because of his newspaper’s article. In response to a question from the Tribunal, Mr Heffer confirmed that he had been aware, at the relevant time, that the three men had been assigned an Independent Mental Capacity Advocate.
Findings of the SDT; Matter No. 9959-2008 (PDF)

The Telegraph article referred to Ms. Hossack as the solicitor for three men by whom she was not instructed. It was this “technicality” – that she was not, in fact, their solicitor – that Simon Heffer had not appreciated. Despite not being instructed by them, she had made an application to the court for an interim injunction to prevent them being moved, but the SDT accepted that she did this on the basis of instructions from residents of the same home (by whom she was instructed) to “preserve the status quo”.

The Telegraph coverage does not appear to engage with the legal merits of the applications being brought.

The men, who have difficulty walking and speaking, will be moved to unfamiliar surroundings without their support network, she claims.
The High Court in London rejected an application by Mrs Hossack last week for an injunction to prevent the removal of any residents.

The SDT’s Findings tell a rather different story:

93. The Respondent had then issued an application requesting urgent interim relief, which had been rejected by His Honour Judge Gilbart on 30th November 2007. He had said that he had refused interim relief on the basis that the papers had failed to disclose even, ‘a just arguable claim for Judicial Review’.

94. On 19th December 2007 the Respondent had made a further application for urgent interim relief, to prevent the transfer of 3 incapacitated adults from Rokeby House. That had been dismissed by Mr Justice Burnton as an inappropriate application, observing that ‘It is in substance an inadmissible appeal against the Order…… of HHJ Gilbart QC’.

95. The Respondent had then made a further application by letter which had been refused on the 21st December 2007 by Mr Justice Wyn Williams who had observed, ‘The reality is this claim had no prospects of success’.

Following the SDT decision, in December 2009 the Telegraph named her one of its “Britons of the Year”.

In one of the earliest articles it wrote about her, in April 2003, the Telegraph printed comments from Yvonne Hossack about a decision of Mr. Justice Silber in a case regarding a private care home. Commenting on the decision, she told the newspaper:

It is a judgment to kill people. The judge’s expression of sympathy is just a sop to these people.
Care home closure verdict will kill pensioners, says lawyer

This, then, is the context in which the action brought by Lord Justice Sedley must be placed.

Late last year a complaint was made to the Office of Judicial Complaints about Sedley LJ. This complaint was dismissed in its entirety.

However, on 20 November) the Daily Telegraph published an article about the complaint, under the headline “Judge ‘hastened deaths of elderly’“. This article, in the words of LJ Sedley’s counsel:

…repeated, and so placed in the public domain, a series of allegations derived from the complaint which were so professionally damaging that it became necessary to commence proceedings so as to make the truth known…
Agreed Statement in Court (PDF)

A judge, deciding a judicial review application, does not make “…a judgement to kill people” when he finds against them. He makes a decision based on facts, and on applying the law to those facts. Saying otherwise is hyperbolic at best.

The media are free to pick sides in disputes. But they are not free to mislead their readers, or to make or reprint allegations against people which are unfounded and damaging. As counsel noted before the court today:

To that end the Daily Telegraph is here today to make it clear that the allegations to which it gave currency were wholly without foundation. The paper, to its credit, has at no stage sought to suggest that they were true.

Even judges are entitled to protect themselves from unfounded allegations, and to vindicate their reputations. Unlike the United States, we do not have a system in which public figures are denied that protection in all but the most exceptional circumstances.

Even judges can be libelled, and it’s to be hoped newspapers will pay a little more attention to that when reporting legal matters in future.

Manipulated images, protracted litigation, and a lack of irony

Generations of school boys have scrawled offensive graffiti concerning their teachers across desks and walls, but apparently this wasn’t enough for Hennie le Roux, Christiaan Gildenhuys, and Reinhard Janse van Rensburg, three pupils from the prestigious Hoërskool Waterkloof in Pretoria. They chose instead to manipulate what one news report delicately called “…a picture of two bodybuilders engaged in an intimate activity…”, adding the head of their Deputy Headmaster, Dr Louis Dey, to one of the bodies.

In classic arms race style, Dr. Dey was similarly creative: in addition to school disciplinary proceedings, the three teenagers went through a criminal trial, and were then sued for defamation by Dr. Dey. Nor was the good Dr. satisfied when the court awarded him R45,000 in damages, an amount he appealed, calling it “shockingly inappropriate”.

What makes the whole thing just that little bit stranger is that Dey wasn’t the only person featured in the manipulated image; the school’s Headmaster was too, but he apparently didn’t feel the need to bring defamation proceedings.

This bizarre case had been running since August 2008, through a decision of South Africa’s Supreme Court of Appeal, and finally came before the Constitutional Court.

Dr. Dey, for his part, said last year that he had no regrets:

While I never thought it would reach the Constitutional Court, it is still my desire to see that justice is done and that the end of this legal process will confirm that teachers has a right, just like anybody else.
‘They have not shown any true remorse’

I suspect any judgment was going to be an anti-climax, but I doubt Dr. Dey was particularly happy with one that reduced his damages to R25,000 (although it did increase the costs he received in the original proceedings). While it may have altered the South Africa law of defamation (especially around the liability of minors) and set clear limits on freedom of expression, I doubt this case will ever be remembered for more than the fact it was pursued at all.

You can read the full judgement here, courtesy of SAFLII.

Just to add a little colour to the proceedings before the Constitutional Court, a number of NGOs filed amicus briefs, apparently with no sense of irony:

The Freedom of Expression Institute told the court children have a right to freedom of expression…while the Restorative Justice Centre said the parties should have engaged each other before going to court.
Judgment expected in photo manipulation case

I’ve been unable to confirm whether the League for Ludicrous Litigation expressed any view.