Andrew Bridgen Claims Matt Hancock Has ‘A Motive to Discredit Me’ as Libel Battle Reaches High Court

Conservative MP Andrew Bridgen arrives ahead of the launch of the Boris Johnson's Conservative Party leadership campaign at the Academy of Engineering in London on June 12, 2019. Leon Neal/Getty Images

Former Conservative MP Andrew Bridgen was in the High Court for a preliminary hearing on Friday in his attempt to sue his one-time colleague Matt Hancock for libel following remarks the former health secretary made on social media platform X, which he says are defamatory.

Mr. Hancock’s legal team attempted to have the case struck out on the grounds that Mr. Bridgen’s plea is “defective” and has no reasonable prospect of success.

Mr. Bridgen attended the hearing at the Royal Courts of Justice and several of his supporters were in the public gallery.

Mr. Hancock, the West Sussex MP who now sits as an independent after losing the Tory whip following his appearance on the reality show “I’m A Celebrity...Get Me Out Of Here!” did not attend court himself but was represented by Aidan Eardley, KC.

Mr. Bridgen was suspended by the Conservative Party in January 2023 after repeatedly raising concerns about the COVID-19 vaccines both in Parliament and online.

On the same day as he had the whip withdrawn—Jan. 11—Mr. Bridgen put out an X post in which he said a consultant cardiologist had told him the delay in releasing safety data on the vaccines was “the biggest crime against humanity since the holocaust.”

Mr. Hancock sent out a post on the same day as Mr. Bridgen’s referencing the holocaust in which he said, “The disgusting and dangerous anti-semitic, anti-vax, anti-scientific conspiracy theories spouted by a sitting MP this morning are unacceptable and have absolutely no place in our society.”

Mr. Hancock’s post was accompanied by a video of him using similar wording to ask a question of Prime Minister Rishi Sunak earlier that day in the House of Commons, where remarks are protected by parliamentary privilege.

‘Activated By Malice’

Mr. Bridgen contends that “every person reading the tweet knew it was about me,” that it was “seriously defamatory and untrue” and intended to cause “grievous harm” to his reputation, the court was told by his barrister, Christopher Newman.

The barrister said that as the health secretary who promoted the vaccine rollout, Mr. Hancock’s actions were “activated by malice” and “he was willing to break the law because he has a motive to discredit Mr. Bridgen.”

Mr. Newman told the court, “That is because Mr. Bridgen’s work for his constituents is starting to reveal evidence which could potentially have professional consequences for Mr. Hancock.”

The North West Leicestershire MP briefly joined Laurence Fox’s Reclaim Party after he was expelled by the Conservatives, but left citing “differences in direction.”

Mr. Bridgen launched a crowdfunding campaign for his legal fees after Mr. Hancock ignored his request to apologise to him and take down the allegedly defamatory X post “within three days.”

Matt Hancock, secretary of state for health, visits the NHS vaccine centre that has been set up at Epsom Racecourse in Epsom, England, on Jan. 11, 2021. Dan Kitwood/Getty Images

His claim submits that owing to his various parliamentary questions and social media posts, Mr. Bridgen gained a reputation as a narrative questioner and a critic of the COVID-19 jabs and that, therefore, it would be a “reasonable” assumption that most people would know that Mr. Hancock’s post was referring to him.

Mr. Eardley, acting for Mr. Hancock, argued that his client had not specifically named Mr. Bridgen in the post, and that as there are 650 sitting MPs, and more than one of them had criticised the vaccines, it was not clear to whom the former health secretary was referring.

Mr. Eardley said he accepted the reputation Mr. Bridgen had gained for himself, but disputed whether “a reasonable reader” of Mr. Hancock’s post would believe they knew for certain to whom he was referring when he wrote “a sitting MP.”

‘A Hopeless Case’

Mr. Eardley added that assuming every user of X would be familiar with the particulars of Mr. Bridgen’s comments and with his very recent losing of the party whip just two hours before Mr. Hancock’s post, made his case “hopeless.”

Mr. Newman contended that it was clear to many users of X that Mr. Hancock was referring to his client as his post was sent on the same day as the fallout from Mr. Bridgen’s post mentioning the holocaust and on which he lost the Conservative Party whip after an internal investigation found he was “spreading misinformation” about the COVID-19 vaccines.

He added that “nobody was confused” about whom Mr. Hancock was referring to, because the loss of the whip was a “massive event” that would have been known by “just about everybody” following a Conservative Party press release.

Mr. Hancock’s post meant “Mr. Bridgen is anti-Semitic” or he that he advanced “anti-Semitic theories,” which were “obviously extraordinarily damaging imputations,” the court was told.

Mr. Newman said “no honest person could hold the view that Mr. Bridgen is anti-Semitic when there is no evidence at all that he is.”

The barrister added that in his post, which he later deleted: “Mr. Bridgen was citing a cardiologist, who by the use of the word ’since' was making the point that the holocaust was more serious. The very opposite of holocaust minimisation.”

After hearing legal arguments, the judge Mrs. Justice Steyn said she would consider her decision and her judgment will be handed down at a later date.