![]() |
[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 >> Henry v News Group Newspapers Ltd (Rev 1) [2011] EWHC 1058 (QB) (20 April 2011) URL: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2011/1058.html Cite as: [2011] EWHC 1058 (QB) |
[New search] [View without highlighting] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL |
||
B e f o r e :
____________________
SYLVIA HENRY |
Claimant |
|
- and - |
||
NEWS GROUP NEWSPAPERS LIMITED |
Defendant |
____________________
Mark Warby QC and Adam Wolanski (instructed by Farrer & Co) for the Defendant
Hearing date: 13 April 2011
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
Mr Justice Eady :
"The gross insult to the Claimant's feelings has been further exacerbated by …
83.4.1 the knowledge that the Defendant newspaper had and must have known that it had no sound evidence that she was culpable or responsible to the alleged or any degree for Peter Connelly's appalling abuse and death;
83.4.2 the Defendant newspaper persisting and revelling in its reckless campaign of vilification against her as an occasion and opportunity for self-congratulation and self-promotion … "
Although the Defendant's attack is confined to the first of these passages, I have included the second for context.
"So that the Claimant's case is clear, please state whether or not the Claimant is advancing a case of express malice against the Defendant, and if so providing full particulars of such case, stating:
1.1 which individuals at the Defendant organisation it is alleged acted with express malice at the time of publication; and
1.2 in respect of each such individual, all facts and matters relied upon in support of the Claimant's case that that individual acted with express malice.
2. If it is not alleged that the Defendant acted with express malice, please state whether it is the Claimant's case that the insult to her feelings was further exacerbated by her belief (as opposed to her knowledge) that no one at the Defendant newspaper had sound evidence that she was culpable or responsible to the alleged or any degree for Peter Connelly's appalling abuse and death."
a) She was not (as yet) alleging express malice in relation to the case of fair comment pleaded at that stage (while reserving her position in case further information emerged);
b) She has not been able to contend that, if any of the publications were fair comment on true facts, they did not represent the honest opinion of the commentator, but "the position may change".
c) It was "apparent" from the contents of the article that "all the Defendant knew concerning the Claimant and her involvement as a social worker in the case of Peter Connelly when publishing was (a) that she had been involved in some way (but not how) in a decision to return Peter Connelly to his mother's care seven months before his death; and (b) (from no later than 17 November 2008) that prior to him returning to his mother's care (and contrary to the Claimant being implicated as culpably responsible for Peter's abuse and death) the Claimant had attempted to have Peter placed in foster care.
d) The Defendant "either knew that" it was not the case that the Claimant had been one of the social workers responsible for Peter's case after he had returned to his mother's care and in the period in which social workers had failed to detect or prevent the appalling abuse that culminated in his death; or the Defendant "knew that it had no reliable information that it had been".
e) It was apparent … that the Defendant newspaper had and must have known that it had no sound evidence that the Claimant was responsible to the alleged or any degree for Peter Connelly's appalling abuse and death.
Since the plea of fair comment has been withdrawn, the observation contained in subparagraph (b) above about "honest opinion" is no longer relevant.
"It has long been recognised that in determining what sum within that bracket should be awarded, a jury, or other tribunal, is entitled to have regard to the conduct of the defendant. He may have behaved in a high-handed, malicious, insulting or oppressive manner in committing the tort or he or his counsel may at the trial have aggravated the injury by what they there said. That would justify going to the top of the bracket and awarding as damages the largest sum that could fairly be regarded as compensation."
"Damages for any tort are or ought to be fixed at a sum which will compensate the plaintiff, so far as money can do it, for all the injury which he has suffered. Where the injury is material and has been ascertained it is generally possible to assess damages with some precision. But that is not so where he has been caused mental distress or when his reputation has been attacked – where, to use the traditional phrase, he has been held up to hatred, ridicule or contempt."
a) the recording or transcript of the BBC Panorama programme broadcast on 17 November 2008 and any information received from the BBC regarding that broadcast
b) the Haringey Council statement referred to in articles published in The Sun of 18 November 2008
c) records of information received supporting the assertion in the website article of 19 November 2009 that the Claimant was one of the "key people who failed to help Baby P"
d) records of the interview and information received from the then Secretary of State for Children, Ed Balls MP, referred to in articles published on 27 November 2008
e) records of information received concerning the 16-page serious case review report ("the assessment") referred to in articles published in The Sun of December 2008
f) records of interview and information received from the "admin assistant" quoted in articles published in The Sun and on the website on 3 December 2008
g) records of information received supporting the assertions in the "Sun Says" article of 19 February 2009 that Ms Henry was one of five social workers "most involved" in the "Baby P case"
h) reporters' notes of interviews and conversations concerning the Claimant made in the information gathering process; letters and other written statements concerning the Claimant received in the information gathering process; texts, notes or other records of publications concerning the Claimant received or created in the information gathering process; transcripts or other records of broadcasts referring to the Claimant received or created in the information gathering process.
There is no need to go into the background of these categories of documents in any detail, since Mr Warby's objections can be shortly stated.
(a) The recording or transcript of the BBC Panorama broadcast, etc.
(b) The Haringey Council statement
(c) Records of information received suggesting the Claimant was one of the "key people who failed to help Baby P"
(d) Records of the Ed Balls material
(e) Information concerning the serious case review report
(f) Records or notes of interview and information received from the "admin assistant"
(g) Records of information supporting the proposition that the Claimant was one of five social workers "most involved"
(h) The "sweeping up" provision