Galloway wins libel case against the Telegraph

[Matt D]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4061165.stm

[punky]

Hmmm.

The Glasgow Kelvin MP had denied ever seeking or receiving money from Saddam Hussein's government, which he said he had long opposed.

Yeah, it sounded like he opposed Hussein's government when he said "Sir, I salute your courage, your strength, your indefatigability."

It isn't clear in the article: Was he proven innocent, or just not proved guilty? There is a big, crucial difference, and I would like to know either way.

[Shaun]

Galloway wins libel case against the Telegraph

..............and archer won his too, look where that got him

Originally Posted by punky

It isn't clear in the article: Was he proven innocent, or just not proved guilty? There is a big, crucial difference, and I would like to know either way.

Err, yes, there *IS* a big difference, Punky and you *really* should know it by now after threads with me! You are *presumed* innocent...!

In this case, because he brought the case against the Daily Telegraph, actually it's the DT who were presumed innocent (in libel cases it has to be shown that the claims were false or defamatory)

Given the Judge's summing up: "Mr Justice Eady said: "It was the defendants' primary case that their coverage was no more than 'neutral reportage' of documents discovered by a reporter in the badly-damaged foreign ministry in Baghdad, but the nature, content and tone of their coverage cannot be so described." it seems pretty clear that the claims were defamatory and the Telegraph failed to produce anything to either back them up or to justify the way they presented them.

[punky]

Originally Posted by Graham

Err, yes, there *IS* a big difference, Punky and you *really* should know it by now after threads with me! You are *presumed* innocent...!

But I said there was a difference!

Given that the Telegraph couldn't prove he did, has no bearing on wether he did take the money or not, which is what I would love to know. I would hardly feel vindicated if it was me.

Could be wrong, but I am sure I heard that civil cases were dealt differently than criminal cases. Noone is presumed innocent and the the proof doesn't have to be beyond doubt, merely beyond the other parties?

[Flubflow]

Originally Posted by punky

Hmmm.



Yeah, it sounded like he opposed Hussein's government when he said "Sir, I salute your courage, your strength, your indefatigability."

I suppose you have to in a way. Especially considering SH kept Iran at bay and was then prepared take on the might of the allied forces. It is a widely recognised thing in military terms to respect any enemy but, yes, it would have been better for Galloway to shut up or at least tagged on "...even if you are an incredibly stupid, mean and violent thug" (and then run away very fast).

Personally, I think Galloway is a fool to himself but I think the press got the kicking it deserved in that you can't go around publishing BS based on sources that you cannot fully verify, claiming that they are simply "raising concerns". People naturally are often quick to judge (or misjudge) others on the most scant of hearsay and having a national newspaper encourage that too much is not a good idea IMHO.
Newspapers have more competition than ever for simple news. They go further and further to the extremes in order to sell their fish'n'chips wrappers to point where they really need to be forced to have big red warning stamped on the top of the front page "Not everything you read in this newspaper is factually correct".

[BBKing]

It isn't clear in the article: Was he proven innocent, or just not proved guilty? There is a big, crucial difference, and I would like to know either way.

Libel cases are not criminal cases, they're civil cases, so guilt and innocence (and where the burden of proof lies) are *not* comparable.

In libel the burden lies on the people who spread the alleged libel to prove either that it's true, or that there wasn't anything malicious (i.e. they'd checked the story and presented it in accordance with a reasonable level of faith in its truth, *or* (importantly) that there was an overriding public interest in publishing, which protects the free press from having to justify absolutely every aspect of a story prior to publication. Journalists are allowed to print untrue stories, which explains a lot of the printed press being total BS.

The relevant bit of law (defendant = Telegraph, plaintiff = Galloway):

The defence of qualified privilege must be seen in its overall setting in the law of defamation. Historically the common law has set much store by protection of reputation. Publication of a statement adversely affecting a person's reputation is actionable. The plaintiff is not required to prove that the words are false. Nor, in the case of publication in a written or permanent form, is he required to prove he has been damaged. But, as Littledale J. said in McPherson v. Daniels (1829) 10 B. & C. 263, 272, 'the law will not permit a man to recover damages in respect of an injury to a character which he does not or ought not to possess'. Truth is a complete defence. If the defendant proves the substantial truth of the words complained of, he thereby establishes the defence of justification

The Telegraph didn't even try to prove that their claims were true, they went straight for the public interest defence, which suggests that they wouldn't have been able to prove their story true and thus that Galloway was *not* in the pay of Saddam or a traitor. If they could have proved that, they certainly would have.

What's clear in this case is that the Telegraph published a story without any supporting evidence that damaged the reputation of a public figure. Worse, they published it in a way that left no doubt in a reader's mind that it was true - this is why the damages were so high.

Ironically, of course, since the story was published the then owner of the Telegraph has fallen spectacularly from grace - he really *was* a nasty crook with a penchant for nicking other people's money, which anyone who reads Private Eye will have known for years (Galloway's an unpleasant self-publicist with an eye for the ladies, for that matter, but that's not illegal).

*'qualified privilege' is the official term - a few years ago the former Taoiseach Albert Reynolds (eventually) *lost* a case against the Sunday Times which had claimed he lied to the Dáil and to his own party. The jury (they still had juries in libel cases then) found that the ST was wrong, but hadn't defamed him deliberately, which was ok - this was overturned on appeal, etc, etc, until the Lords settled it in favour of the press's right to be wrong - go on, read the judgement...

http://www.parliament.the-stationery...1028/rey01.htm

Galloway speaks (smugly):

http://media.guardian.co.uk/site/sto...365553,00.html

[SMHarman]

Originally Posted by punky

<snip>
Could be wrong, but I am sure I heard that civil cases were dealt differently than criminal cases. Noone is presumed innocent and the the proof doesn't have to be beyond doubt, merely beyond the other parties?

For a Civil case the evidence has to be " on the balance of probablities", so looking at all probable outcomes based on the evidence, which one is most likely to be the truth.

For Criminal (being as you will be banging them up for a few years, the burden of proof is "beyond reasonable doubt", the evidence leaves no doubt that they are guilty. This is why criminal cases can often fail, a good defence lawyer puts sufficient seeds of doubt into the case to weaken the prosecution.

In this case on the balance of probabilities DT did not act with sufficient proprietary and as a result bounced Galloway through thier own kangeroo court without giving him a chance to respond, in the balance of probability that is the facts.

[Damien]

I really dislike Galloway. Robin cook showed how you handle your belifs but Galloway seems to love the pride his moral values all though the papers while at the same time prising a mass murdering dictator

[BBKing]

To add to SMHarman's excellent post, the other difference between a criminal case and the Galloway libel case is that in the former it's up to the prosecution to prove the defendant's guilt, in the latter it's up to the defendant to prove that the story was either true, or a responsibly reported story in the public interest. If it can't do either, the plaintiff wins, possibly without having to do anything.

[Shaun]

Originally Posted by Graham

<snip>

Sorry Graham no matter how the law stands on this I think he is a slimy toe rag, just like archer.

[BBKing]

The law is blind to toeragness or otherwise - he deserves the law's protection from politically motivated defamation just as Archer deserved the law's punishment for lying in court.

Game for you - who said, about Saddam:
“It struck us as useful to have a relationship, given that we were interested in solving the Mideast problems.�

[Damien]

It was rumsfeld, Although he didnt exatly go as far as Galloway did.

[BBKing]

What did Galloway do that was worse than trying to sell a pipeline to a madman who was waging an oil-funded war using chemical weapons? I'd be interested to know that one.

[punky]

It is interesting what other people have said about SH, and not in the 70's either, but the 90's and 00's

Concise text version

Video that an amateur video journalist has made