I’m surprised this one didn’t get all that much play in the weblog world; Gorgeous George finally filed suit the week before last against the Telegraph. There was a lot of suspicion going round earlier that he wasn’t going to; Telegraph editor Charles Moore has certainly been talking a bit of smack to this effect. My guess is that what has happened is that Galloway has reached a point where he is reasonably confident that he will be able to finance the Telegraph suit out of the proceeds of a settlement with the Christian Science Monitor. I’m pretty sure that the CSM will settle; they’ve been caught bang to rights, and their apology won’t count all that much since they made it after Galloway sued them. Soon we’ll find out what kind of barrister GG’s retained, and shortly after that we’ll find out if the Telegraph is really as confident as they appear, or whether they’ve been bluffing a pair of deuces, hoping that with his charity under investigation and the Arabic contributors who’ve supported his lifestyle over the last few years perhaps backing off a little, he wouldn’t be able to afford the price of a ticket. If the Telegraph ends up settling, though, we will have been deprived of what could potentially have been a wonderfully entertaining trial.
As you might guess from the above, I’m a libel fan, even perhaps a “buff”. I love high-profile politicals libel trials; they’re usually more intellectually challenging than showbiz ones, and they usually end up establishing some important precedent which helps expand the frontiers of free speech. Furthermore, there’s always the chance that somebody will perjure themselves and end up in clink (Alan Rusbridger of the Guardian should be heartily congratulated for having inaugurated the British newspaper tradition of celebrating a won libel case by passing over your files to the boys in blue; normally I don’t approve of snitching, but it has certainly helped to restrict the overuse of the libel courts by celebrities and sportsmen). To help try and share my enthusiasm with others, here’s a sort of “pre-season guide” to the form, some of the background and some things to look out for to enchance your armchair libel enjoyment.
There are five main defences against a libel action under English law; absolute and qualified privilege, truth, fair comment and innocent dissemination. There are also a couple of rarer ones; “vulgar abuse” isn’t libel, and you can’t libel someone who is already so publicly disgaced that he has no reputation worth protecting, but the big five are the only ones that you’d expect to see seriously advanced in a court of law. Absolute privilege and innocent dissemination clearly couldn’t apply to the Telegraph articles, and I very much doubt that anyone would bother trying to claim that they were purely comment, so we’re basically down to two possibilities.
Truth
To be honest, I think that the Telegraph is on a sticky wicket with this one, and I very much doubt that they will try to use it. They are probably on strong ground with respect to the authenticity of their documents; the experts who knocked down the CSM papers appear to have said that the Telegraph ones have all the key characteristics of official Iraqi documents, but that isn’t likely to be the matter of Galloway’s complaint. The point is that, in all likelihood, the Telegraph would have to prove that the actual allegations were true and that Galloway actually did take the money, and the burden of proof is all on them.
(By the way, it is often regarded to be a terrible injustice that the burden of proof is on the defendant in libel trials. This isn’t the case. The burden of proof is on you if you decide to use truth as your defence. As with any other defence, you have to prove that it’s valid to use it, or it isn’t a defence at all. If you’re making a statement that is potentially defamatory, you jolly well ought to be able to prove it beyond reasonable doubt.)
Proving that Galloway took the cash is going to be next to impossible. All he has to do is stick to his story; that he had no knowledge of the documents and never met the guy who wrote them, and unless he does an Aitken (embellishes an otherwise winnable libel case with an unnecessary but provably false statement made under oath), he’s in the clear. The Telegraph hasn’t proved that he took the money (only that some Iraqi documents say he did), and if it’s found that they claimed that he did, then they’ve libelled him.
Of course, this turns on the question of how the court interprets the Telegraph articles. A modified version of the defence involves a hybrid of truth and fair comment; establishing that the assertion that the documents were genuine (truth) and that everything else the Telegraph said was fair comment on the fact that the documents said what they said. It’s an attractive defence, but my worry about it is that something of the sort was tried by the Guardian in the Jonathan Aitken libel case and it didn’t work. There, Mr Justice Popplewell found that the Guardian had accused Aitken of procuring prostitutes for Arab businessmen and that they couldn’t hide behind the defence that they were only reporting that people had said things to them. As I say above, if Aitken had stuck to suing them on this specific claim, he would almost certainly have won, but unfortunately the need to clear his name for his political career meant that he had to also sue them on a number of other matters, which led him into the perjury. The Telegraph’s lawyers will be aware of the precedent, and it looks to me as if they have attempted to ensure that the Telegraph stories on the Iraqi documents are a bit more tightly worded than the Guardian’s stories on Aitken, but I’m not sure they’d be so massively confident that the lawyering has been watertight as to rely on it in court. In general, the British courts have been of the opinion that if you print it, you own it.
Qualified privilege
More likely, according to the blatts I read, is that the Telegraph will claim a defence of qualified privilege. Privileged statements are not libellous even if they are both false and defamatory. The difference between absolute and qualified privilege is that the small class of statements covered by absolute privilege (basically, testimony in courts and proceedings of the Houses of Parliament) cannot be libellous in any circumstance, while statements covered by qualified privilege are not libellous so long as they were not made maliciously. The idea is that the doctrine of qualified privilege is that there are some kinds of statement which ought to be held to a looser standard than others. For example, there is a qualified privilege for people defending themselves against an attack (a precedent established by the McLibel trial). On the face of it, the Telegraph might think about wanting to sue Galloway for accusing them of printing forged documents (a claim he has stopped making), but I doubt they will bother to do so as this is the sort of remark that would be covered by qualified privilege. There’s a decent summary of the relevant law available here
There are all sorts of ways in which a defence of qualified privilege might be available, but the interesting one is the one available under Section 15 of the Defamation Act 1996, which allow qualified privilege for “material that is of public concern and for the public benefit”. The UK newspaper industry has been all over this one for years, as it looks as if there might be enough of a loophole there that the section could be stretched into a generalised public interest defence of the sort which is available to (though scandalously rarely used by) the American press. The case of Reynolds vs. Times Newspapers in 19991 brought us a step closer with this judgement, which might be enough to work with, if the Telegraph can show that publishing the evidence about George Galloway was in the public interest and that they weren’t ludicrously unfair to him.
There are two great things about this defence (for me; from the point of view of settling the actual issue it’s amazingly frustrating; win or lose, Galloway’s name is neither cleared nor blackened). First, if the Telegraph wins, it establishes a public interest defence which can be used profitably on all sorts of future occasions. Second, because everything turns on whether there was a legitimate public interest in publishing evidence which tended to discredit a prominent spokesman against the war, there is a massive opportunity for Galloway’s lawyers to turn the whole thing into a massive judicial referendum on the war. Particularly, they can start calling all sorts of loose cannon witnesses from the fringes of the intelligence community. They’ll also be able to get loads of serving MI6 officers into the dock to testify under oath “Yes, sometimes we forge documents”. It will all be tremendous fun, and will keep the general issue of dodgy dossiers and lies about Iraq in the newspapers for at least six months. Pull up a deckchair and a copy of Halsbury’s Laws of England, sit back and enjoy. The cricket’s going to be rubbish anyway.
I don’t suppose anyone will mistake this for legal advice, by the way, but just to keep things clear, it isn’t.
1The former Taoiseach of Ireland sued the Sunday Times for an article entitled “Goodbye Gombeen Man” which claimed he’d lied to the Dail. The jury found that he hadn’t, but awarded damages of a penny because they thought the article wasn’t malicious. The Sunday Times tried to get awarded costs because the lack of malice meant they’d have a full defence if the article was covered by qualified privilege. It went to the House of Lords, who chucked it out, but seemed to leave the door open.)
I have just noticed that what begins as an “Armchair guide” ends by exhorting people to “pull up a deckchair”. I could correct it, but instead I’m going to pretend it’s a reference to Ludwig Wittgenstein.
À Gauche
Jeremy Alder
Amaravati
Anggarrgoon
Audhumlan Conspiracy
H.E. Baber
Philip Blosser
Paul Broderick
Matt Brown
Diana Buccafurni
Brandon Butler
Keith Burgess-Jackson
Certain Doubts
David Chalmers
Noam Chomsky
The Conservative Philosopher
Desert Landscapes
Denis Dutton
David Efird
Karl Elliott
David Estlund
Experimental Philosophy
Fake Barn County
Kai von Fintel
Russell Arben Fox
Garden of Forking Paths
Roger Gathman
Michael Green
Scott Hagaman
Helen Habermann
David Hildebrand
John Holbo
Christopher Grau
Jonathan Ichikawa
Tom Irish
Michelle Jenkins
Adam Kotsko
Barry Lam
Language Hat
Language Log
Christian Lee
Brian Leiter
Stephen Lenhart
Clayton Littlejohn
Roderick T. Long
Joshua Macy
Mad Grad
Jonathan Martin
Matthew McGrattan
Marc Moffett
Geoffrey Nunberg
Orange Philosophy
Philosophy Carnival
Philosophy, et cetera
Philosophy of Art
Douglas Portmore
Philosophy from the 617 (moribund)
Jeremy Pierce
Punishment Theory
Geoff Pynn
Timothy Quigley (moribund?)
Conor Roddy
Sappho's Breathing
Anders Schoubye
Wolfgang Schwartz
Scribo
Michael Sevel
Tom Stoneham (moribund)
Adam Swenson
Peter Suber
Eddie Thomas
Joe Ulatowski
Bruce Umbaugh
What is the name ...
Matt Weiner
Will Wilkinson
Jessica Wilson
Young Hegelian
Richard Zach
Psychology
Donyell Coleman
Deborah Frisch
Milt Rosenberg
Tom Stafford
Law
Ann Althouse
Stephen Bainbridge
Jack Balkin
Douglass A. Berman
Francesca Bignami
BlunkettWatch
Jack Bogdanski
Paul L. Caron
Conglomerate
Jeff Cooper
Disability Law
Displacement of Concepts
Wayne Eastman
Eric Fink
Victor Fleischer (on hiatus)
Peter Friedman
Michael Froomkin
Bernard Hibbitts
Walter Hutchens
InstaPundit
Andis Kaulins
Lawmeme
Edward Lee
Karl-Friedrich Lenz
Larry Lessig
Mirror of Justice
Eric Muller
Nathan Oman
Opinio Juris
John Palfrey
Ken Parish
Punishment Theory
Larry Ribstein
The Right Coast
D. Gordon Smith
Lawrence Solum
Peter Tillers
Transatlantic Assembly
Lawrence Velvel
David Wagner
Kim Weatherall
Yale Constitution Society
Tun Yin
History
Blogenspiel
Timothy Burke
Rebunk
Naomi Chana
Chapati Mystery
Cliopatria
Juan Cole
Cranky Professor
Greg Daly
James Davila
Sherman Dorn
Michael Drout
Frog in a Well
Frogs and Ravens
Early Modern Notes
Evan Garcia
George Mason History bloggers
Ghost in the Machine
Rebecca Goetz
Invisible Adjunct (inactive)
Jason Kuznicki
Konrad Mitchell Lawson
Danny Loss
Liberty and Power
Danny Loss
Ether MacAllum Stewart
Pam Mack
Heather Mathews
James Meadway
Medieval Studies
H.D. Miller
Caleb McDaniel
Marc Mulholland
Received Ideas
Renaissance Weblog
Nathaniel Robinson
Jacob Remes (moribund?)
Christopher Sheil
Red Ted
Time Travelling Is Easy
Brian Ulrich
Shana Worthen
Computers/media/communication
Lauren Andreacchi (moribund)
Eric Behrens
Joseph Bosco
Danah Boyd
David Brake
Collin Brooke
Maximilian Dornseif (moribund)
Jeff Erickson
Ed Felten
Lance Fortnow
Louise Ferguson
Anne Galloway
Jason Gallo
Josh Greenberg
Alex Halavais
Sariel Har-Peled
Tracy Kennedy
Tim Lambert
Liz Lawley
Michael O'Foghlu
Jose Luis Orihuela (moribund)
Alex Pang
Sebastian Paquet
Fernando Pereira
Pink Bunny of Battle
Ranting Professors
Jay Rosen
Ken Rufo
Douglas Rushkoff
Vika Safrin
Rob Schaap (Blogorrhoea)
Frank Schaap
Robert A. Stewart
Suresh Venkatasubramanian
Ray Trygstad
Jill Walker
Phil Windley
Siva Vaidahyanathan
Anthropology
Kerim Friedman
Alex Golub
Martijn de Koning
Nicholas Packwood
Geography
Stentor Danielson
Benjamin Heumann
Scott Whitlock
Education
Edward Bilodeau
Jenny D.
Richard Kahn
Progressive Teachers
Kelvin Thompson (defunct?)
Mark Byron
Business administration
Michael Watkins (moribund)
Literature, language, culture
Mike Arnzen
Brandon Barr
Michael Berube
The Blogora
Colin Brayton
John Bruce
Miriam Burstein
Chris Cagle
Jean Chu
Hans Coppens
Tyler Curtain
Cultural Revolution
Terry Dean
Joseph Duemer
Flaschenpost
Kathleen Fitzpatrick
Jonathan Goodwin
Rachael Groner
Alison Hale
Household Opera
Dennis Jerz
Jason Jones
Miriam Jones
Matthew Kirschenbaum
Steven Krause
Lilliputian Lilith
Catherine Liu
John Lovas
Gerald Lucas
Making Contact
Barry Mauer
Erin O'Connor
Print Culture
Clancy Ratcliff
Matthias Rip
A.G. Rud
Amardeep Singh
Steve Shaviro
Thanks ... Zombie
Vera Tobin
Chuck Tryon
University Diaries
Classics
Michael Hendry
David Meadows
Religion
AKM Adam
Ryan Overbey
Telford Work (moribund)
Library Science
Norma Bruce
Music
Kyle Gann
ionarts
Tim Rutherford-Johnson
Greg Sandow
Scott Spiegelberg
Biology/Medicine
Pradeep Atluri
Bloviator
Anthony Cox
Susan Ferrari (moribund)
Amy Greenwood
La Di Da
John M. Lynch
Charles Murtaugh (moribund)
Paul Z. Myers
Respectful of Otters
Josh Rosenau
Universal Acid
Amity Wilczek (moribund)
Theodore Wong (moribund)
Physics/Applied Physics
Trish Amuntrud
Sean Carroll
Jacques Distler
Stephen Hsu
Irascible Professor
Andrew Jaffe
Michael Nielsen
Chad Orzel
String Coffee Table
Math/Statistics
Dead Parrots
Andrew Gelman
Christopher Genovese
Moment, Linger on
Jason Rosenhouse
Vlorbik
Peter Woit
Complex Systems
Petter Holme
Luis Rocha
Cosma Shalizi
Bill Tozier
Chemistry
"Keneth Miles"
Engineering
Zack Amjal
Chris Hall
University Administration
Frank Admissions (moribund?)
Architecture/Urban development
City Comforts (urban planning)
Unfolio
Panchromatica
Earth Sciences
Our Take
Who Knows?
Bitch Ph.D.
Just Tenured
Playing School
Professor Goose
This Academic Life
Other sources of information
Arts and Letters Daily
Boston Review
Imprints
Political Theory Daily Review
Science and Technology Daily Review