Ordaaah: avoiding a legal action for slander as an MP: the role of defamation lawyers in London, parliamentary debate and the law
Following the Supreme Court judgement on prorogation recently, the atmosphere on MP’s return to the commons was a little tense to say the least. Kicking off the pleasantries was Geoffrey Cox QC, the Attorney General, booming that Parliament had ‘no moral right to sit’ and leading to calls of ‘disgrace’ and ‘shame’ from opposition MPs. The debates that followed were punctured by vicious and often emotional exchanges, with some criticising the PM’s use of war-like language, that set some commentators wondering whether the language MPs use needs to be toned down.
Putting aside the question of whether language such as this is ‘dangerous’, what can the law do when a statement made in parliament carries a real danger of hurting someone?
A defamatory statement made orally can give rise to a legal action for slander, and is actionable in defamation if it can be shown to have caused or be likely to cause serious harm.
With statements made in Parliament, however, it is different.
In the interest of open debate and freedom of speech, what MPs say in the House is protected by ‘parliamentary privilege’. This means that they can debate freely about whatever subject they wish without having to worry about lawsuits or hearing from slander lawyers.
While democratic debate needs to be free and open, there have been several recent occasions where politicians have made statements under the protection of parliamentary privilege that could reasonably be regarded as undermining or exploiting the concept.
A pertinent example was late last year, when Sir Philip Green, having obtained a super-injunction from the High Court, had it rendered completely useless when he was named as the anonymised person by Lord Hain in the House of Lords. Green had been subject to an action brought by several claimants in relation to sexual misconduct and while the judges in the case found against Green, they considered the strength of a potential appeal such that they would grant an anonymity order for the interim period. The three judges that made the ruling agreed on this unanimously. Whilst, in light of the political climate of ‘#metoo’ and concerns about BHS failing, Lord Hain may have felt he was making a point in the public interest, in doing so he directly undermined the order made by the High Court.
Similarly, Tom Watson, the Labour MP, used the same rule in 2012 to draw attention to the lurid claims of ‘Nick’ and a paedophile network conspiracy surrounding the government. The allegations were undoubtedly damaging to many powerful individuals, most notably former Tory Minister Leon Brittan, who died before ‘Nick’, or Carl Beech (his real name), became exposed and discredited for the fraud that he is. In 2019 hindsight, Watson’s decision to make the statement in the House of Commons may have been misjudged – Carl Beech was sentenced to 18 years in prison for perverting the course of justice.
Most recently, whilst speaking in the House of Commons Jacob Rees Mogg likened a doctor’s concerns about ‘no-deal Brexit’ to the vaccine scaremongering of the disgraced Dr Wakefield. The doctor in question, David Nicholl, had criticised the government’s plans for medical imports on ‘no deal’ in the Operation Yellowhammer report. Dr Nicholl immediately took against Rees Mogg’s comments saying on the news that if Rees Mogg was brave enough to repeat himself outside of Parliament then he would sue him. Rees Mogg quickly apologised to Dr Nicholl, but the issue remains that Dr Nicholl was publicly denounced without any legal recourse to defend himself.
The question therefore must be raised as to how far Parliamentary Privilege can be used, especially when it is exploited in such ways as discussed above. Should limits be imposed upon it? How do we decide when the use of slander lawyers should be entertained?
Taylor Hampton, defamation lawyers in London, regularly tackle issues surrounding defamation. When someone is defamed, it not only impacts their feelings but also their family, their jobs, their businesses and their relationships. The sad case of Leon Brittan dying before the country could hear of his innocence is but one example.
Slander lawyers should therefore welcome a debate on the issue of Parliamentary Privilege, especially when it is paradoxically used to belittle experts and public figures in order to quash debate.
