![]() |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] [DONATE] | |||||||||
England and Wales High Court (Queen's Bench Division) Decisions |
||||||||||
PLEASE SUPPORT BAILII & FREE ACCESS TO LAW
To maintain its current level of service, BAILII urgently needs the support of its users.
Since you use the site, please consider making a donation to celebrate BAILII's 25 years of providing free access to law. No contribution is too small. If every visitor this month gives just £5, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing this vital service.
Thank you for your support! | ||||||||||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Queen's Bench Division) Decisions >> Galloway MP v Telegraph Group Ltd. [2004] EWHC 2786 (QB) (02 December 2004) URL: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2004/2786.html Cite as: [2005] EMLR 115, [2005] EMLR 7, [2004] EWHC 2786 (QB) |
[New search] [View without highlighting] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Strand. London. WC2A 2LL | ||
B e f o r e :
____________________
George Galloway MP |
Claimant | |
- and - |
||
Telegraph Group Limited
|
Defendant
|
____________________
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
Mr Justice Eady :
Introduction: The parties and the articles sued upon
• "Labour MP 'received at least £375,000 a year'"
• "Cash came from oil for food programme"
• "Papers could have been forged, he says"
"GEORGE GALLOWAY, the Labour backbencher received money from Saddam Hussein's regime, taking a slice of oil earnings worth at least £375,000 a year, according to Iraqi intelligence documents found by The Daily Telegraph in Baghdad.
A confidential memorandum sent to Saddam by his spy chief said that Mr Galloway asked an agent of the Mukhabarat secret service for a greater cut of Iraq's exports under the oil for food programme.
He also said that Mr Galloway was profiting from food contracts and sought 'exceptional' business deals".
"GEORGE Galloway's Jordanian intermediary has a family history of loyalty to Saddam Hussein's Ba'ath Party, according to his Iraqi intelligence profile.
Fawaz Abdullah Zureikat, 53, would clearly be an ideal choice to conduct any business dealings with the Iraqi regime.
His Mukhabarat secret service profile, attached to the intelligence chief's memorandum to Saddam's office on Mr Galloway, refers to him warmly as a 'sympathiser with Iraq"'.
"FOR years, Saddam Hussein abused the United Nations oilfor-food programme to fund Iraq's own illegal activities and reward the regime's favoured friends.
The embargo may have been designed to 'contain' Saddam, but several loopholes allowed him to earn billions of pounds in illegal revenues through oil sales.
The papers found in Baghdad suggest that George Galloway, through his associates, was granted two kinds of deal.
The first was the right to buy Iraq's oil, under the oil-for-food programme, at concessionary prices and sell it on at a profit. The second was to sell food and perhaps other civilian supplies to Iraq".
"It doesn't get much worse than this. George Galloway is Britain's most active and visible peace campaigner. The Labour MP for Glasgow Kelvin did not just oppose the recent campaign against Saddam Hussein; he lobbied equally aggressively against the first Gulfwar, and - during the years in between - for an end to sanctions. Yesterday, The Daily Telegraph's correspondent in Baghdad, David Blair, unearthed papers detailing alleged payments from Saddam's intelligence service to Mr Galloway through a Jordanian intermediary.
There is a word for taking money from enemy regimes: treason. What makes this allegation especially worrying, however, is that the documents suggest that the money has been coming out of Iraq's oil-for-food programme. In other words, the alleged payments did not come from some personal bank account of Saddam's, but out of the revenue intended to pay for food and medicines for Iraqi civilians: the very people whom Mr Galloway has been so fond of invoking.
Speaking from abroad yesterday, Mr Galloway was reduced to suggesting that the whole thing was a Daily Telegraph forgery, but the files could hardly be more specific. One memo comments: 'His projects and future plans for the benefit of the country need financial support to become a motive for him to do more work, and because of the sensitivity of getting money directly from Iraq it is necessary to grant him oil contracts and special commercial opportunities to provide him with a financial income under commercial cover without being connected to him directly'''.
(i) "That the Claimant was in the pay of Saddam Hussein and had secretly received at least £375,000 a year from Saddam Hussein's regime;
(ii) That the Claimant had made very substantial secret profits from Saddam Hussein and his regime, firstly by receiving money from the 'Oil for Food' programme (the Claimant's share being 10-15 cents per barrel on three million barrels of oil every six months) and secondly by receiving a percentage of the profit on a number of food contracts the Claimant had obtained from the Iraqi Ministry of Trade;
(iii) That, not satisfied with the very substantial personal profits referred to above, the Claimant had, at a meeting on 26th December 1999, asked an Iraqi intelligence agent for even more money for himself;
(iv) That the Claimant used the Mariam Appeal as a front to conceal his secret commercial dealings with the Iraqi intelligence service, through which commercial dealings he sought to obtain very substantial sums of money for himself".
There is then a bolder headline: " Memo from Saddam: We can't afford to pay Galloway more".
allegations may perhaps be gathered from the following extracts:
"SADDAM HUSSEIN rejected a request from George Galloway for more money, saying that the Labour backbencher's 'exceptional' demands were not affordable, according to an official document found by The Daily Telegraph in Baghdad.
The letter from Saddam's most senior aide was sent in response to Mr Galloway's reported demand for additional funds. This was outlined in a memorandum from the Iraqi intelligence chief disclosed in The Daily Telegraph yesterday.
Mr Galloway denies receiving any money from the regime ...
Saddam was rejecting two specific requests allegedly made by Mr Galloway, as recorded in the intelligence chieFs memorandum.
The first was for a greater share of the profits from oil exports. The memorandum said that Mr Galloway was already receiving between 10 and 15 cents per barrel of three million barrels exported every six months: an annual sum of at least £375,000.
Mr Galloway's second reported request was for 'exceptional commercial and contractual' opportunities with three ministries and the state electricity commission. These requests for more sources of income fell on deaf ears, but Saddam's decision not to allow them did not apply to Mr Galloway's existing deals. Before Saddam issued his rejection, Mr Galloway sent his 'work programme' for 2000 to Mr Aziz ... "
"lf Mr Galloway did receive this money, what precisely has he done wrong? First and foremost, it is a betrayal of trust. He has betrayed those who, out of genuine philanthropy, donated money to his campaigns. He has betrayed his fellow campaigners against war and sanctions. He has betrayed the voters of Glasgow. He has betrayed the Labour Party, both locally and nationally. He has betrayed Parliament. He has betrayed his country. Whether or not he has committed a criminal offence, he has done great damage, not only to his own reputation, but also to that of Parliament. Those who have fought alongside him would be wise not to fall for his conspiracy theories, or defend him out of a misplaced sense of loyalty or solidarity. Mr Galloway is a greater menace to his political friends than to his enemies, as the Labour Party has evidently realised".
(1) "In the name of Allah the Compassionate and Merciful
(2)
Republic of Iraq
President's Office
Iraqi Intelligence Service
Confidential and Personal
Letter no. 140/4/5
3/1/2000
To: The President's Office - Secretariat
Subject: Mariam Campaign
1 We have been informed by our Jordanian friend Mr Fawaz Abdullah Zureikat (full information about him attached appendix no. 1), who is an envoy of Mr George Galloway because he participated with him in all the Mariam Campaign's activities in Jordan and Iraq, the following:
(a) The mentioned campaign has achieved its goals on different levels, Arabic, international and local, but it is clear that by conducting this campaign and everything involved in it, he puts his future as a British member of parliament in a circle surrounded by many question marks and doubts.
As much as he gained many supporters and friends, he made many enemies at the same time.
(b) His projects and future plans for the benefit of the country need financial support to become a motive for him to do more work. And because of the sensitivity of getting money directly from Iraq, it is necessary to grant him oil contracts and special and exception [ al] commercial opportunities to provide him with a fmancial income under commercial cover without being connected to him directly.
To implement this Mr Galloway gave him an authorisation (attached) in which he pointed out that his only representative on all matters related to the Mariam Campaign and any other matters related to him is Mr Fawaz Abdullah Zureikat, and the two partners have agreed that financial and commercial matters should be done by the last [Zureikat] and his company in cooperation with Mr Galloway's wife, Dr Amina Abu Zaid, with emphasis that the name of Mr Galloway or his wife should not be mentioned later.
2. On 26/12/1999 the friend Fawaz arranged a meeting between one of our officers and Mr Galloway in which he expressed his willingness to ensure confidentiality in his financial and commercial relations with the country and reassure his personal security.
The most important things Mr Galloway explained were:
(a) He stressed that Mr Fawaz Zureikat is his only representative in all matters concerning the Mariam Campaign and to take care of his future projects for the benefit of Iraq and the commercial contracts with Iraqi companies for the benefit of these projects.
But he did not refer to the commercial side of the authorisation he granted to Mr Fawaz for reasons concerning his personal security and political future and not to give an opportunity to enemies of Iraq to obstruct the future projects he intended to carry out.
(b) He is planning to arrange visits for Iraqi sports and arts delegations to Britain and to start broadcasting programmes for the benefit of Iraq and to locate Iraq On Line for the benefit of Iraq on the internet and mobilise British personalities to support the Iraqi position.
That needs great financial support because the financial support given by [a named Arab sheikh] is limited and volatile because it depends on his personal temper and the economic and political changes. Therefore he needs continuous financial support from Iraq.
He obtained through Mr Tariq Aziz three million barrels of oil every six months, according to the oil-for-food programme. His share would be only between 10 and 15 cents per barrel. He also obtained a limited number of food contracts with the Ministry of Trade. The percentage of its profits does not go above one per cent.
He suggested to us the following:
First, increase his share of oil. Second, grant him exceptional commercial and contractual facilities, according to the conditions and suitable qualities for the concerned Iraqi sides, with the Ministry of Trade, the Ministry of Transport and Communications, the Ministry of Industry and the Electricity Commission.
(c) Mr Galloway entered into partnership with [a named Iraqi oil trader] (available information in appendix 2) to sign for his specific oil contracts in accordance with his representative Fawaz, benefiting from the great experience of the first in oil trading and his passion for Iraq and financial contribution to campaigns that were organised in Britain for the benefit of the country, in addition to his recommendation by Mr Mudhafar alAmin, the head of the Iraqi Interests Section in London.
3. We showed him we are ready to give help and support to him to fmish all his future projects for the benefit of the country and we will work with our resources to achieve this. But we should not be isolated from Mr Tariq Aziz supervising the project in its different aspects.
4. We are going to make arrangements with him to unite the positions and co-operate to make the work succeed.
In accordance with what we have said, we suggest the following:
(a) Agreement on his suggestion explained in article 2 b.
(b) Arranging with Tariq Aziz about implementing these suggestions and taking care of the projects and Mr Galloway's other activities.
Please tell me what actions should be taken.
With regards,
(signature illegible)
Chief of the Iraqi Intelligence Service
2/1/2000
Confidential and personal"
(3) "In the name of Allah the Compassionate and Merciful
(4)
Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Minister's Office
Letter no. 1/9/97
5/Feb/2000
Confidential and urgent
To: Mr Health Minister, Mr Information and Culture Minister, Mr Transport and Communications Minister, Mr the Head of Friendship, Peace and Solidarity Organisation
Subject: Work programme
We send you attached a translation of the work programme for the year 2000 which was submitted by Member of Parliament George Galloway and cleared by the President's office in its letter C/16/1/3562 on 31/January/2000.
Please read it and adopt suitable procedures to implement its phases under discussion according to your specialisations.
With high regards,
Tariq Aziz
Deputy Prime Minister
Acting Foreign Minister
February/2000
Copies should be sent to: Mr Chief of Intelligence Service/with a copy of the programme/to be read please. With high regards.
Mr Deputy Prime Minister's office/ with a copy of the programme
The First Political Unit/to take care of please".
Mode of trial: The roles of iudge and iurv in Revnolds privilege
"Did the Defendant take any steps to verify the contents of the Baghdad documents, in so far as they related to the Claimant, by reference to independent sources of information, such as the governments of the United Arab Emirates or Saudi Arabia, Mr Fawaz Zureikat, the Foreign & Commonwealth Office, the Home Office or intelligence sources, before publishing the articles complained of?"
That may well be a relevant factor for the trial judge to take into account when deciding what is now broadly called "responsible journalism", in the Reynolds context. Mr Price submitted again that there was no issue of primary fact. No one on the Defendants' behalf suggests that they did make such enquiries. Mr Rampton would be in a position to make whatever he wished of that on the privilege issue and also on damages. Indeed, it is a matter that has now loomed large in the course of his submissions. Yet the primary facts were in the end going to be relatively uncontroversial.
(i) Do the articles complained of [in the issue of 22nd April 2003] bear the meanings alleged by the Claimant in paragraph 4 of the particulars of claim?
(ii) Did those articles reflect what was said about the Claimant in the Baghdad documents which were in the Defendant's possession at the time of publication?
(iii) In Andrew Sparrow's telephone conversation with the Claimant on the afternoon of 21 st April 2003:
(a) Did Andrew Sparrow give the Claimant a full and detailed account of the circumstances in which the documents had been found?
(b) Did Andrew Sparrow inform the Claimant of, and seek his response to, the statements about him which the Defendant made in the articles complained of?
(iv) In the issue of The Daily Telegraph on 22nd April 2003, did the Defendant fairly and accurately report the Claimant's responses to Andrew Sparrow during their telephone conversation on the afternoon of 21 st April 2003?
(v) Did the answers given by the Claimant to Mr Sparrow during that conversation provide corroboration for the statements made about him by the Defendant in the articles complained of?
(vi) [Set out above]
(vii) Do the articles complained of [in the issue of 23rd April 2003] bear the meanings alleged by the Claimant in paragraph 6 of the particulars of claim?
(viii) Did those articles fairly and accurately reflect what was said about the Claimant in the Baghdad documents which were in the Defendant's possession at the time of publication?
(ix) In the issue of The Daily Telegraph for 23rd April 2003, did the Defendant fairly and accurately report the Claimant's responses to Andrew Sparrow during their telephone conversation on the afternoon of 21 st April 2003?
(x) Do the Daily Telegraph editorials of 22nd and 23rd April 2003 contain any defamatory statements of fact about the Claimant?
(xi) Do those editorials contain any defamatory comment about the Claimant?
(xii) If the answer to question (xi) is "yes", are the contents of the Baghdad documents and the Claimant's response to those documents (as described to him by Mr Sparrow on the telephone) fully and fairly represented in those editorials?
"It is one matter to apply this principle when deciding whether an article should be regarded as defamatory. Then the question being considered is one of meaning. It will be an altogether different matter to apply the principle when deciding whether a journalist or newspaper acted responsibly. Then the question being considered is one of conduct".
Their Lordships indicated (at [24]) that the standard of conduct by which journalists must be judged has to be applied in a practical and flexible manner:
"The court must have regard to practical realities. Their Lordships consider it would be to introduce unnecessary and undesirable legalism and rigidity if this objective standard, of responsible journalism, had to be applied in all cases exclusively by reference to the 'single meaning' of the words. Rather, a journalist should not be penalised for making a wrong decision on a question of meaning on which different people might reasonably take different views. Their Lordships note that in the present case the selfsame question has resulted in a division of view between members of the Court of Appeal. If the words are ambiguous to such an extent that they may readily convey a different meaning to an ordinary reasonable reader, a court may properly take this other meaning into account when considering whether Reynolds privilege is available as a defence. In doing so the court will attribute to this feature of the case whatever weight it considers appropriate in all the circumstances".
"In the context of the statutory privilege, the decision will turn simply on the answer to the question, was it a fair and accurate report? (There may also be a question about public concern and benefit - but both have to be answered in the defendant's favour for the privilege to be established.) In the Reynolds context, by contrast, fairness/accuracy is only one factor, and moreover mistakes by the newspaper in reporting are allowed for, as they are not if the protection of the statute is claimed. The question may well become one of the degree of unfairness or inaccuracy, and the reason why unfairness and inaccuracy has crept in. For example, urgency, strength of public interest, and appropriateness of tone, may excuse lack of full verification of the fairness and accuracy of the report. These questions can only be answered by the judge as part of the overall value judgment. A bald jury answer to the question:
"Was it a fair and accurate report?" is likely to be of no assistance, or, worse, so inscrutable as actually to exacerbate the judge's task".
"For reasons of policy ... one is not permitted to seek shelter behind the defence of fair comment when the defamatory sting is one of verifiable fact. Depending on the meaning of the words complained of, a defendant has either to justify a primary factual allegation, e.g. of rape, or comply with the necessary disciplines to establish reasonable grounds to suspect. Fair comment does not provide an escape route in such circumstances" .
The meaning of the words
"Whether the text of a newspaper article will, in any particular case, be sufficient to neutralise the defamatory implication of a prominent headline will sometimes be a nicely balanced question ... and will depend not only on the nature of the libel which the headline conveys and language of the text which is relied on to neutralise it, but also on the manner in which the whole of the relevant material is set out and presented":
Charleston v News Group Newspapers [1995] 2 AC 65, 72H73A.
"This is not to say that words in the text of an article will always be efficacious to cure a defamatory headline. It all depends on the context, one element in which is the layout of the article. Those who print defamatory headlines are playing with fire. The ordinary reader might not be expected to notice curative words tucked away further down in the article. This more so, if the words are on a continuation page to which a reader is directed. The standard of the ordinary reader gives [the Court] adequate scope to return a verdict meeting the justice of the case".
"23 Stated shortly, the Reynolds privilege is concerned to provide a proper degree of protection for responsible journalism when reporting matters of public concern. Responsible journalism is the point at which a fair balance is held between freedom of expression on matters of public concern and the reputation of individuals. Maintenance of this standard is in the public interest and in the interest of those whose reputations are involved. It can be regarded as the price journalists pay in return for the privilege. If they are to have the benefit of the privilege journalists must exercise due professional skill and care.
25 ... Where questions of defamation may arise ambiguity is best avoided as much as possible. It should not be a screen behind which a journalist is "willing to wound, and yet afraid to strike" In the normal course a responsible journalist can be expected to perceive the meaning an ordinary, reasonable reader is likely to give his article. Moreover, even if the words are highly susceptible of another meaning, a responsible journalist will not disregard a defamatory meaning which is obviously one possible meaning of the article in question. Questions of degree arise here. The more obvious the defamatory meaning, and the more serious the defamation, the less weight will a court attach to other possible meanings when considering the conduct to be expected of a responsible journalist in the circumstances."
"There is a word for making money from enemy regimes: treason. What makes this allegation especially worrying, however, is that the documents suggest that the money has been coming out of Iraq's oil-for-food programme. In other words, the alleged payments did not come from some personal bank account of Saddam's but out of the revenue intended to pay for food and medicines for Iraqi civilians; the very people whom Mr Galloway has been so fond of invoking".
"Yesterday, The Daily Telegraph's correspondent in Baghdad, David Blair, unearthed papers detailing alleged payments from Saddam's intelligence service to Mr Galloway through a Jordanian intermediary.
…
Speaking from abroad yesterday, Mr Galloway was reduced to suggesting that the whole thing was a Daily Telegraph forgery, but the files could hardly be more specific. One memo comments: 'His projects and future plans for the benefit of the country need financial support to become a motive for him to do more work, and because of the sensitivity of getting money directly from Iraq it is necessary to grant him oil contracts and special commercial opportunities to provide him with a financial income under commercial cover without being connected to him directly' .
It is hard to think of a graver setback to the British anti-war movement. How would you feel if you were one of the many well-meaning peace protesters which had followed Mr Galloway's lead? What would your emotions be if you had given money to his Mariam Appeal, thinking that you were paying to treat a young Iraqi girl for leukaemia and wondering now how your money had been used? For months, anti-war campaigners have been imputing the basest of motives to their adversaries. The whole campaign, they argued, was really about money and oil..
What if it turned out that they, rather than their opponents, had hidden pecuniary motives? What if it was actually the supporters of the campaign who were acting on behalf of Iraqi civilians, while anti-war activists - or at least their leaders were acting for profit?
If it is a bad day for the 'not in my name' brigade it is also a bad day for British Intelligence. If Baghdad was paying one of our MPs, did our security services know about it? If so, what action did they take? If not, what does it say about their competence? Is it possible that they were using Mr Galloway as an unwitting intermediary, probing to see whether Saddam might settle without a war?
Both the Labour Party and the Stop the War Coalition will, no doubt, be following the revelations nervously …
Many, from all wings of the Labour Party, have nursed their doubts about the Glasgow MP, peering suspiciously at his natty suits and winter sun-tan. Yet they have never been able to pin their doubts on anything concrete.
If the allegations in the documents are borne out, however, expulsion from Labour is the least Mr Galloway should expect ... In order to comply with the European Convention on Human Rights, Tony Blair has abolished the death penalty in treason cases; but collaborating with a hostile regime remains the most serious of offences ...
By the same token, although they would be quick to put the boot into Mr Galloway - as much for the crime of profiting from oil as anything else - hardcore peace campaigners would not be disheartened by the evidence that he was paid by one of the vilest regimes on earth .
…The next time Britain and the US deploy force, they will march as though nothing had changed, for their convictions are beyond argument. But some of those who demonstrated for peace did so open-mindedly, from decent motives, believing that the war was, on balance, the greater evil. Such people may be prepared to extrapolate from today's revelations .
…Certainly it was Saddam's view that the anti-war movement was an ally of the Ba'athist regime - so much so, it seems, that he was prepared to divert money away from hungry children in order to finance it.
It is just possible that, like the British Communists who tore up their membership cards following the Soviet invasions of Hungary and Czechoslovakia, some of these people may recant their support. They may even, as they see how much more the occupying forces are doing for Iraqi civilians than the old regime ever did, feel guilty. Above all, they may be reluctant to march in support of this kingdom's enemies in future".
The evidence of the witnesses
"Bringing Mariam to the UK for treatment signalled the founding of the Mariam Appeal, a political campaign that would work all over the world to highlight the situation in Iraq under sanctions and campaign for the lifting of the embargo while at the same time helping to treat Mariam. In this sense the Appeal had a dual purpose. If sanctions were to be lifted all the Mariams left behind could be treated properly and maybe saved. This was my aim and I never made any bones about the dual purpose of the Appeal. I knew instinctively that this child personified the suffering of the Iraqi people under the embargo. In 2002 the organisation ceased to exist. However, during its lifetime, in addition to bringing Mariam to Glasgow for treatment, it took a red London bus on a campaigning tour from Big Ben to Baghdad, where three million Iraqis turned out to receive us. It also took medicines to Iraq, and broke the air embargo by flying from London to the besieged Iraqi capital. It also funded various visits to Iraq and elsewhere to continue the campaign against the use of sanctions in Iraq".
"The information provided to the Commission suggests that the Executive Committee considered these payments were necessary and were unaware that they were unauthorised. The Commission accepts that none of the Executive Committee acted in bad faith and that the services provided were of value to the Appeal".
Although some of the activities of the Appeal were political in nature, the information provided to the Commission suggested that the activities were ancillary in terms of expenditure to the purposes of the Mariam Appeal. "The trustees could reasonably have formed the view that this would have the impact of enabling treatment for sick children". This highlights the significance of the distinction between the Claimant's and the Defendants' meanings: see para 58 above.
(a) that the Mariam Appeal needed "continuous financial support from Iraq" because "the backing of an Arab Sheikh was limited and volatile";
(b) that the name of Mr Galloway and his wife were not supposed to be referred to in relation to "oil contracts and special commercial opportunities";
(c) that he was intending to arrange visits for Iraqi sports and arts delegations to Britain and "mobilise British personalities to support the Iraqi position";
(d) that he had entered into partnership with Burhan Mahmoud Chalabi in relation to oil contracts.
"The truth is I never met, to the best of my know ledge, any member of Iraqi intelligence. I have never in my life seen a barrel of oil, let alone bought or sold one. I have never asked Iraq for money to help our campaign. Our campaign was funded throughout by private donations and governmental donations from Arab countries, friendly to Britain and the United States".
Mr Sparrow persisted and asked whether it was ever funded by Iraq, to which Mr Galloway replied "Never. Never funded by Iraq. And I would never have asked Iraq to fund the campaign".
"I don't believe he was soliciting funds from the regime on my behalf. I don't believe he was soliciting funds from the regime at all. He was an extremely generous benefactor of the Mariam Appeal. He's a very successful businessman. I have no reason to believe whatsoever that he solicited funds from the regime".
When asked whether the Mariam Appeal ever got involved in oil trading, he said he was absolutely sure that it had not.
"Because obviously I don't have this in front of me, so I can't even begin to work out what you're talking about. But the key parts of what you are saying, which have miraculously turned up in Baghdad, are false".
"This memo that's come to light talks about concessions for trading, I think, it's three million barrels of oil for six months which must be worth quite a lot of money and someone in my head office is doing the maths but I think they came up with a figure of something in the region of £200,000. I mean, did the Mariam Appeal have income on that basis?"
Thus, although the "maths" apparently yielded a much higher figure shortly afterwards (i.e. £375,000), the matter was clearly put to Mr Galloway on the basis that it might have been an income of the Mariam Appeal. This led him to respond by saying that the total funding of the Appeal over its whole life might have been of the order of one million pounds, of which more than half came from the government of the United Arab Emirates. From this context, it is clear that both he and Mr Sparrow regarded the queries as directed towards the funding of the campaign.
"Just to recap. You've sort of made this clear before, but I just want to be sort of crystal clear on this, because I mean it's quite serious. You say the Mariam Campaign sort of never to your knowledge sort of received money or solicited money from the Iraqi regime?"
Mr Galloway said "No" and Mr Sparrow persisted:
"Did they ever - did they ever sort of try to give you money? It must have been very tempting for them".
Mr Galloway (clearly from the context understanding "you" as referring to the campaign) replied:
"No. We had no need for support from Iraq as I told you. We had important and wealthy benefactors, like the royal family of the UAE, the royal family of Saudi Arabia and we had the very generous support of Fawaz Zureikat".
"Well why would I? Look, first of all, there's no sensitivity as far as I'm concerned. There is no sensitivity. I was involved for many years in fighting the full might of the British and American state and their big media friends, like yourselves. That was a very difficult battle. We had to find support where we could get it and we operated as a political organisation, as political organisations do. They don't open themselves up to the attentions of their enemies and I include you and the people like you as being my enemies. So from my point of view it's not sensitive at all. And I myself was not any kind of signatory or trustee or beneficiary of any of the money raised in the campaign. I've never been a signatory on any of the chequebooks. I've never been responsible for the expenditure of any money. I've never myself received any money, any benefits from these campaigns. On the contrary. I have given my political life's blood to them. So, from my point of view, it isn't sensitive".
There was never any hint to Mr Galloway that his sweeping denials of personal involvement were to be challenged the following day. He concluded the conversation by confirming that he would be available on his mobile number to deal with any further queries that Mr Sparrow or The Daily Telegraph lawyers might wish to put to him.
"About half way through the translation I saw that a paragraph (numbered 2) recorded a meeting between an Iraqi intelligence officer and Mr Galloway in person. During this meeting Mr Galloway himself had apparently requested further financial support from Iraq. From my reading of the short summary filed earlier by Mr Blair, I had supposed that Mr Zureikat had been the central figure in dealings with the Iraqi regime. Now for the first time Mr Galloway was implicated directly and in detail. The revelation changed the potential story, by removing the suggestion that Mr Galloway had operated solely through an intermediary" .
It is perhaps worth noting that when Mr Sparrow rang Mr Galloway, shortly after this, he was being guided by the "short summary" or "central facts" filed earlier by Mr Blair. I therefore set out the three first paragraphs:
(a) On 3rd January 2000, the head of the Iraqi intelligence service sent a memorandum to Saddam Hussein's office concerning George Galloway's "Mariam Campaign". This campaign, which brought an Iraqi child called Mariam to Britain for cancer treatment, was the focus of Galloway's efforts at the time.
(b) The memorandum reported on a meeting between Iraqi intelligence and Fawaz Zureikat, Galloway's representative in Iraq.
(c) In this meeting, Zureikat "conveyed a message from Galloway." Zureikat said that Galloway needed "financial support" from the Iraqi government so that he could continue "helping Iraq". Direct payments were too "sensitive", so the support should be given under "commercial cover".
This may account for why he did not put to Mr Galloway the "revelation" perceived by Mr Harris. In other words, he did not put to Mr Galloway that he had directly approached an Iraqi intelligence officer for money. Nevertheless, Mr Sparrow had read through the memorandum on screen.
(i) He trusted Mr Blair from his experience of him as "a highly professional and savvy correspondent who cared about getting his stories right".
(ii) It seemed to him wholly unrealistic to suppose that someone had forged the documents and left them to be found as Mr Blair described.
(iii) He had clear evidence that Mr Galloway was used to mixing with the most influential figures in Saddam Hussein's government, including Tariq Aziz.
(iv) He had corroborated Mr Galloway's whereabouts in December 1999, when the intelligence memorandum appeared to suggest that he had met an intelligence officer in Iraq.
"Mr Galloway: I have never seen a barrel of oil, never owned one, never bought one, never sold one
Mr Sparrow: But I'm asking about the Mariam Appeal, the Mariam Campaign".
Mr Rampton also suggested to Mr Sparrow fairly and squarely that he at no time put to Mr Galloway, so that he could have an opportunity to deal with it, the allegation that he took money from the Iraqi regime or from the oil-for-food programme. He clearly did not put it. Despite the apparent intention to convey to readers that Mr Galloway had benefited personally or "solicited Iraqi bribes", they at no time rang him back from London on his mobile number to give him an opportunity to deal with that. There was thus, for whatever reason, a mismatch between the allegations put to him and those published within a matter of hours thereafter.
Qualified Privilege
"51 I am not, of course, saying that verification (or at least an attempt at verification) of a third party's allegations will not ordinarily be appropriate and perhaps even essential. In rejecting the general claim for qualified privilege for political discussion Lord Nicholls said in Reynolds at 203B:
'One difficulty with this suggestion is that it would seem to leave a newspaper open to publish a serious allegation which it had been wholly unable to verify. Depending on the circumstances, that might be most unsatisfactory.'
52 I am saying, however, that there will be circumstances where, as here, that may not be 'most unsatisfactory' - where, in short, both sides to a political dispute are being fully, fairly and disinterestedly reported in their respective allegations and responses. In this situation it seems to me that the public is entitled to be informed of such a dispute without having to wait for the publisher, following an attempt at verification, to commit himself to one side or the other".
Fourthly, I shall need to consider whether The Daily Telegraph was "fully, fairly and disinterestedly" reporting the content of the Baghdad documents and Mr Galloway's response to those allegations. Fifthly, it would clearly be significant if they went beyond reporting them and made independent allegations or inferences.
"Most of the ECHR's jurisprudence, however, save for one or two recent cases, was discussed in Reynolds and to my mind it adds little of value to the English case law, at any rate in the context of the present appeal".
(i) the allegations were recognised to be factual in character rather than value judgments;
(ii) there had been no defence put forward of truth;
(iii) the surgeon was not named but would have been identifiable to some readers;
(iv) he had not been given an opportunity to comment prior to publication, but was only given a chance to respond afterwards;
(v) what seems to have been crucial to the majority decision was the public interest in the subject matter under discussion in the newspaper articles. The impugned articles recounted matters of patient safety and concerned an important aspect of health care.
"By reason of the 'duties and responsibilities' inherent in the exercise of freedom of expression, the safeguard afforded by Article 10 to journalists in relation to reporting on issues of general interest is subject to the proviso that they are acting in good faith in order to provide accurate and reliable information in accordance with the ethics of journalism.".
"It is also of importance that the depicted events and quotations in the [third] article ... were derived from the police's pre-trial record, which was a public document. In the court's opinion no general duty to verify ... statements contained in such documents can be imposed on reporters and other members of the media, who must be free to report on events based on information gathered from official sources. If this were not the case the efficacy of Article 10 of the Convention would to a large degree be lost".
"In a modem democracy all those who venture into public life, in whatever capacity, must expect to have their motives subjected to scrutiny and discussed. Nor is it realistic today to demand that such debate should be hobbled by the constraints of conventional good manners - still less of deference."
(i) The seriousness of the allegation. The more serious the charge, the more the public is misinformed and the individual harmed, if the allegation is not true.
(ii) The nature of the information, "and the extent to which the subject matter is a matter of public concern".
(iii) The source of the information. Some informants have no direct knowledge of the events. Some have their own axes to grind, or are being paid for their stories.
(iv) The steps taken to verify the information.
(v) The status of the information. The allegation may have already been the subject of an investigation which commands respect.
(vi) The urgency of the matter. News is often a perishable commodity.
(vii) Whether comment was sought from the [claimant]. He may have information others do not possess or have not disclosed. An approach to [the claimant] will not always be necessary.
(viii) Whether the article contained the gist of the [claimant's] side of the story.
(ix) The tone of the article. A newspaper can raise queries or call for an investigation. It need not adopt allegations as statements of fact.
(x) The circumstances of the publication, including the timing.
I also need to bear in mind the general exhortation on the same page:
"Above all, the court should have particular regard to the importance of freedom of expression. The press discharges vital functions as a bloodhound as well as a watchdog. The court should be slow to conclude that a publication was not in the public interest and, therefore, the public had no right to know, especially when the information is in the field of political discussion. Any lingering doubts should be resolved in favour of publication".
(a) No reasonable journalist could reasonably have believed that the proposed articles would not convey that imputation against Mr Galloway; the relevant journalists must have known that they would.
(b) The Defendants were under a duty to put the allegations to Mr Galloway before publication, so as to obtain his response and to publish the gist of that response fairly.
(c) The Defendants were under a duty to supply the Claimant with copies and translations of the Baghdad documents and then to afford him time to consider them in the light of the allegations they were proposing to make (assuming that an accurate summary had been given to him of what it was intended to publish).
(d) The Defendants fundamentally misrepresented the true meaning and effect of the documents in their news articles and editorials.
(e) This must have been a deliberate decision, given that the documents do not allege (and could not reasonably have been understood by any of the journalists involved to allege) that the Claimant took money for himself.
" ... in the absence of any additional safeguard for reputation, a newspaper, anxious to be first with a 'scoop', would in practice be free to publish seriously defamatory misstatements of fact based on the slenderest of materials. Unless the paper chose later to withdraw the allegations, the politician thus defamed would have no means of clearing his name, and the public could have no means of knowing where the truth lay. Some further protection for reputation is needed if this can be achieved without a disproportionate incursion into freedom of expression. "
I naturally also appreciate that news can be a "perishable commodity" but this story, if it could be stood up, would be of interest at any time. It would not become stale.
Fair comment
The conceptual problem is this. If one says, "If Mr Justice X took a bribe, he is not fit to hold office", that is not of itself defamatory of Mr Justice X. It would be true as a moral proposition whichever name appeared. It would equally be true of Mr Justice Y and Mr Justice Z. The function of a plea of fair comment is to defend a defamatory comment about the relevant claimant. I have never encountered a plea of fair comment in this conditional form previously and the reason is not far to seek. A statement in that form is not defamatory. Of course it may be, depending upon a particular context, that the words do give the impression that the claimant actually did the reprehensible act in question. If so, the appropriate defence would be one of justification, either on the basis of "guilt" or perhaps "reasonable grounds to suspect". That is a strategy which has been spurned by these defendants.
"They may feel misled. They may even, as they see how much more the occupying forces are doing for Iraqi civilians than the old regime ever did, feel guilty. Above all, they may be reluctant to march in support of this kingdom's enemies in future" .
The effect of the leader is to point out that Saddam regarded the antiwar movement as an ally of his regime - "so much so, it seems, that he was prepared to divert money away from hungry children in order to finance it". The message is clear. That is why "it doesn't get much worse". He was diverting it to Mr Galloway, who had misled the antiwar protesters.
"Once Mr Galloway had been drawn into the web, he could not have escaped without risking the destruction of his career. His exposure suggests that others may follow. Though he is a colourful and eloquent figure, Mr Galloway does not wield much power or influence. He would not be the only Western European politician to have yielded to the temptations of Saddam. Others who acted as his apologists over many years must now be wondering what further documents will emerge from the ruins of the regime".
The notion of "exposure" plainly connotes, as Mr Rampton has submitted, that wrongdoing has taken place. I accept that the leaders are defamatory of Mr Galloway and that their "sting" is factual rather than comment. It is the difference between tentative comment and a rush to judgment.
Damages
"In these circumstances what is the Court to do, if the Claimant succeeds on liability? The situation engineered by the Claimant threatens to bring the judicial proceeding into disrepute: if the Claimant is vindicated by the judicial proceeding, and Parliament ignores it, the judicial proceeding is set at naught and brought into disrepute or even (if the Parliamentary investigation finds the Claimant guilty) contempt. On the other hand, if Parliament accepts that the Claimant has been vindicated by the judicial proceeding, and closes down its investigation of the truth of the matter, the situation will be right for a public outcry, and both Parliament and the judicial proceeding will have been brought into disrepute".
As I have already emphasised, I intend to be very cautious in my approach, and to honour the conventions of Parliamentary privilege and the provisions of Article 9 of the Bill of Rights. I certainly do not intend to take any step which will bring these judicial proceedings into contempt, and I see no reason to suppose that they will in any way infringe Parliamentary privilege or give any appearance of inhibiting Parliament's wide-ranging powers of investigation into the conduct of one of its members.
"Mr Galloway: ... 1 freely concede to you that throughout, especially throughout the period of ownership of Lord Conrad Black and Barbara Amiel, The Daily Telegraph hated everything that I believed about the Middle East.
Mr Price: And you are on record as saying that [is] because Barbara Amiel is Jewish.
Mr Galloway: I beg your pardon. That is an - if you can libel someone in a courtroom, that is a very serious libel.
Mr Price: I had better show you the letter then.
Mr Galloway: Yes, you'd better.
Mr Price: It will be found in a minute.
Mr Galloway: Yes, I hope so. That's a clear accusation of antisemitism against me and I demand that you withdraw it.
Mr Price: I am not accusing-
Mr Galloway: I demand that you withdraw it.
Mr Price: I am not accusing you of anti-semitism.
Mr Galloway: I have never made an anti-semitic comment in my entire life and I demand that you withdraw it.
Mr Price: This is the letter, I can hand you a copy of it so you can see it, and I will hand one to my Lord and to my learned friend .. .look at the fifth paragraph there: 'The Telegraph group is controlled by Lord and Lady Black, Barbara Amiel, two of Israel's most vociferous supporters'
Mr Galloway: And in what sense IS that a reference to somebody's religion?
Mr Price: It is a reference to Black's nationality. I will tell you what it is.
Mr Galloway: My Lord, this is an outrage. This letter which has been produced does not mention the word 'Jewish', does not mention that anyone involved in the letter is Jewish. It says 'Sharon's Israel most vocal supporters'.
Mr Price: ... In this letter you are saying that The Telegraph reports that you are suing on were in some way inspired by the fact that Lord and Lady Black are supporters of Israel.
Mr Galloway: I don't know if I'm in order here but I demand that you withdraw.
Mr Price: Just answer the question.
Mr Galloway: I demand that you withdraw the allegation of anti-semitism against me.
Mr Price: I have not accused you of anti-semitism.
Mr Galloway: The court record shows very clearly that you said that in this letter I referred to Lady Black as being Jewish. It was a lie, a lie, a lie.
Mr Price: All right, I withdraw the suggestion that you referred to her as being Jewish. You referred to her as being one of Israel's most vociferous supporters.
Mr Galloway: I don't think that even she would dispute that".
(Not part of the judgment)
(a) Mr Galloway had been in the pay of Saddam Hussein, secretly receiving sums of the order of £375,000 a year;
(b) He diverted monies from the oil-for-food programme, thus depriving the Iraqi people, whose interests he had claimed to represent, of food and medicines;
(c) He probably used the Mariam Appeal as a front for personal enrichment;
(d) What he had done was tantamount to treason.