Lord Neuberger to lead appeal panel over Channel Four libel jury case
The Master of the Rolls Lord Neuberger will examine Mr Justice Tugendhat’s decision to disallow a jury in a major libel trial against Channel Four.
Lord Neuberger
The Master of the Rolls Lord Neuberger will examine Mr Justice Tugendhat’s decision to disallow a jury in a major libel trial against Channel Four.
Last month (28 May) defendants Channel Four, Studio Lambert and Jane Preston requested that the case being brought against them by Matthew Fiddes be decided by judge alone.
Channel Four’s barrister 5RB silk Adrienne Page QC argued before Tugendhat J that the complex nature of the claim meant it was unsuitable for a jury trial. Furthermore, she added, it add yet more costs to the £3m accumulated by both sides so far (2 June).
In his ruling Tugendhat J said: “Costs are now acknowledged to present a chilling effect on freedom of expression.”
Ruling in favour of the defendant, the High Court judge stated: “Vast as they are, these costs are, I’m afraid, not untypical of libel litigation. Not many cases get to trial […] and when they do get to trial, the costs are enormous. Here it is in excess of £3m.
“Nevertheless, if there are savings in costs to be made, even at this late stage, they can be made.”
The decision was immediately appealed and has been listed for Thursday with Neuberger MR presiding over a three strong panel which will include Lord Justice Kay. A third panel member is yet to be appointed.
The court is expected to deliver its verdict straight away as the trial is set dowm for a 20 day hearing from Monday (14 June).
It will centre on allegations that Fiddes was libelled by the broadcaster, documentary maker Studio Lambert and producer Jane Preston.
The documentary, which was named The Jacksons are Coming and was first aired in November 2008, followed late pop star Michael Jackson’s brother Tito and his entourage when they stayed in North Devon for five weeks as they apparently looked for a home in the area.
Fiddes, who had known the Jacksons for a number of years, took part in the show but is claiming that he was misrepresented, with the programme suggesting that he tipped the press off about the Jacksons’ whereabouts for personal gain.
Aslan Charles Kousetta partner Susan Aslan instructed Page for the defendants.
M Law partner Chris Hutchings has instructed Ron Thwaites QC of Ely Place for the claimant.
Readers' comments (3)
john walton | 8-Jun-2010 11:09 pm
This is yet another ridiculous attack on what was once considered a fundamental right under English law. How, under the circumstances of this case, can Fiddes expect to have a fair hearing when a single judge decides not only the questions of law, but also the questions of fact - any judge is bound to feel compelled by modern arguments concerning Art.10 in English law and therefore the claimant is at a prima facie disadvantage - especially given the current politically ephemeral nature of these legal principles it should be seen as obviously essential that only a jury of peers can be allowed to decide, not what a strict interpretation of law, but what actual human justice demands in this case.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Scep Tick | 9-Jun-2010 3:20 pm
How can Fiddes expect to have a fair hearing? In the same way as every other claimant for a 20 day commercial dispute does - by an unbiased judge.
The question is why, when damages will surely not be into six figures, does this warrant 20 days of Court time? A hundred k contractual dispute would be case managed into less than half that.
Libel is too much a legal cash cow. 95% of all libel claims could be compressed into a week or less - and mostly should be on the fast track. It is obscene that costs are often ten times the damages.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
john walton | 10-Jun-2010 6:46 am
Ah but this is NOT a commercial contract case - it is a libel case. What is at risk is not Fiddes profit margin, it is his reputation, a part of himself, his persona and potentially his health - telling malicious or otherwise negligent mistruths about a person can be very damaging to that person for the rest of their lives and therefore Fiddes deserves to have a trial by jury, fairly constituted by his peers. The costs of these actions are not Fiddes fault and his right of access to justice which is fair, public and transparent should not be hampered by financial pragmatists who, put succinctly, can't see the woods for the trees...
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment