Collyer Bristow defeats Bob Crow libel claim for Boris
Collyer Bristow partner Rhory Robertson and One Brick Court’s David Glen have successfully defended London mayor Boris Johnson against a libel claim brought by union chief Bob Crow.
Boris Johnson
Robertson was instructed by Johnson after RMT general secretary Crow claimed the Tory’s ‘Not Ken Again’ election campaign posters and leaflets defamed him.
Crow was represented by Ryan Dunleavy, an assistant at Thompsons, who instructed Jonathan Crystal of Argent Chambers.
The claim was rejected this afternoon at the High Court.
Crow commenced proceedings in May after taking exception to promotional material issued during the mayoral election featuring the headline “Not Ken Again”, which linked him with former London mayor Ken Livingstone.
He filed the claim after Johnson’s high-profile campaign suggested a vote for Labour rival Livingstone would be a return to “council tax rises, broken promises, cronies, scandals, waste, Bob Crow” (11 May 2012).
According to the papers filed, the poster suggested that “Bob Crow would cause grave harm to the interests of Londoners and supported a culture of political immorality”. They were claiming damages and aggravated damages.
The mayor’s defence was around Article 10 of the Human Rights Act, which gives a wide scope for freedom of expression, especially in political campaigns.
Robertson said: “We’re delighted to have got this claim struck out. It was a claim without merit and should never have been brought.”
A spokesperson for the mayor said: “It’s a good day for democracy. This claim, paid for by RMT members, was entirely political in nature and the court has quite rightly thrown it out.”
Readers' comments (4)
Ben | 17-Jul-2012 10:09 am
According to the papers filed, the poster suggested that “Bob Crow would cause grave harm to the interests of Londoners and supported a culture of political immorality”.
I would have thought a defence of justification would have worked if the judge hearing the case had taken the Underground in the last 10 years.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Tory Boy | 17-Jul-2012 6:33 pm
It would have been a better day for democracy had Crow been forced to meet the costs from his own pocket.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Graham | 18-Jul-2012 4:06 am
How come the RMT are siad to be picking up the costs ? A personal action surely. Would he have given the damages to the RMT if he had won ? I rather think not.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Muhammad Haque | 19-Jul-2012 10:42 am
The "judge" is on the Right course & will be recognised soon for proving the view that the judiciary in England is not fit for just outcomes!
Far less for justice.
The bias against democratic representation as displayed by your web site so far is
additionally typical of the calamity that the English court system and its allied marketeer outfits[!!!!] have become.
It is only a matter of time before this scandal hits the public in the face, as the bankers have done.
The Judge was biased and failed to show any regard for constitutionality with the framework of due process as universally understood.
The vaunted sanctity of the common law has been once again reduced to abuse of power by a judiciary that mistakes its authority for a licence to render the law to the lowest common denominator.
The “judge” has confused the statutes ad misinterpreted the ECHR.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment