The High Court has handed down judgement on a preliminary issue in the case of Andrew Bridgen v Matt Hancock

 

In this update, Taylor Hampton Solicitors reviews a major judgement involving the Government during the pandemic where Mr. Bridgen has brought a libel claim against Mr. Hancock regarding a tweet that accused an unnamed MP of making comments characterized as antisemitic, anti-vax, anti-scientific, and dangerous.

Overview

The Honourable Mrs Justice Collins Rice has delivered a significant judgement on a preliminary issue on meaning in the defamation claim of Andrew Bridgen v Matt Hancock. The judgment, handed down on June 24, 2024, addresses the natural and ordinary meaning of a tweet posted by Mr. Hancock on January 11, 2023.

The tweet:

An unnamed MP had said something that morning related to vaccination, which was baseless, unscientific, dangerous, and offensive, including because its character was antisemitic.

Case Background

Claimant: Andrew Bridgen

Defendant: Matt Hancock

Judgement Highlights

Approach to Analysis

Mrs. Justice Collins Rice took a step-by-step approach, starting with first impressions of the tweet before delving into a detailed legal analysis.

Tweet Analysis

The tweet was evaluated for its focus, with the judgment noting that it seemed to be as much about Mr. Hancock’s positioning and views as it was about Mr. Bridgen’s alleged comments. The tweet was described as reactive, a common feature of political speech on social media, and characterized by a high rhetorical register.

Meaning and Interpretation

• The tweet was deemed to be an expression of Mr. Hancock’s opinions, particularly in its use of value-laden epithets.
• It was recognized that while some terms like “antisemitic” might have factual connotations, in the context of the tweet, they were seen as part of a vehement political commentary.
• The judgment warned against over-literal interpretation of tweets, emphasizing that the tweet would be understood as a strong expression of Mr. Hancock’s views rather than a definitive statement about Mr. Bridgen’s character or beliefs.

An unnamed MP had said something that morning related to vaccination, which was baseless, unscientific, dangerous, and offensive, including because its character was antisemitic.

The court found that in respect of the above tweet:

1. The underlined words are assertions of fact.
2. The remainder is an expression of opinion.

Both parties agreed that the publication had a defamatory tendency under common law, meaning it could adversely affect public opinion of the claimant.

Conclusion

This preliminary judgement in a defamation matter sets the stage for further proceedings, determining that Mr. Hancock’s tweet, while highly critical, is largely viewed as an expression of opinion rather than a factual assertion about Mr. Bridgen. The focus on political context and rhetorical style is crucial in understanding how such communications are interpreted in legal terms.

For more information about a Judgement in a Defamation Matter

For further details or enquiries, please contact Taylor Hampton Solicitors on +442074725970  And please see our Media Department Services HERE  For the Full Judgement please see HERE.