The High Court has determined that a tweet by former conservative health minister Matt Hancock labelling an “unnamed MP” as “antisemitic” is potentially defamatory by common law and ruled the case can proceed to trial.
The judgement on preliminary issues for libel was given on Monday after action was brought forward by former North West Leicestershire MP Andrew Bridgen about a post by the former Health Secretary Matt Hancock on social media platform X on Jan. 11, 2023.
Mr. Hancock’s social media post came after Mr. Bridgen shared a link to an article “concerning data about deaths and other adverse reactions linked to Covid vaccines,” with the caption, “As one consultant cardiologist said to me, this is the biggest crime against humanity since the Holocaust.”
Later that day, Mr. Hancock shared a parliamentary clip of himself asking Prime Minister Rishi Sunak to join in the condemnation of such words in the House of Commons, with the caption,“The disgusting and dangerous antisemitic, anti-vax, anti-science, conspiracy theories spouted by a sitting MP this morning are unacceptable and have absolutely no place in our society.”
All parliamentarians in the House of Commons and House of Lords are protected against libel in the courts by parliamentary privilege. However, privilege does not extend to comments made in the public domain.
In her decision on Monday, Mrs. Justice Collins Rice said the post was a mixture of statement of fact and an “expression of opinion.”
Mrs. Justice Rice said there was no dispute that the post is “of defamatory tendency’ at common law” and has the ability to adversely affect people’s attitudes towards Mr. Bridgen.
“To label speech as antisemitic is to label it as gravely offensive, falling well below the standards expected in our society; it means people would tend to think substantially less well of the speaker,” said Mrs. Justice Rice.
However, in her consideration, Mrs. Justice Rice commented that, “a reader of tweets like this knows and expects they are tuning in to robust and opinionated reactive political comment.”
“They would readily understand that Mr. Hancock was calling out the promulgation of material in another’s comment, what the MP had said and how they had said it, as objectionable from the perspective of public health and standards of public discourse, rather than definitively condemning the MP as an individual.”
She continued, “I am satisfied the ordinary reasonable reader would not have understood this tweet in the terms Mr. Bridgen most fears.
Christopher Newman, representing Mr. Bridgen, previously told the court that the “very, very damaging” post alleged that he was “an antisemite” and reduced his standing to a “devastating extent.”
Aidan Eardley, KC, acting on behalf of Mr. Hancock, argued that the post meant Mr. Bridgen had “disseminated views that were antisemitic in nature” and did not concern Mr. Bridgen’s “general character or belief system.”
In her judgment, Mrs. Justice Rice said: “I am satisfied that the ordinary reasonable reader would, in the context of the whole tweet, have no difficulty in understanding they were being told Mr. Hancock’s strong opinions about the character, or mode of expression, of what had been said, rather than any facts, or even opinions, about the convictions, beliefs or intentions of the unnamed MP in this respect.”
Mr. Bridgen, currently standing as an independent candidate in the North West Leicestershire constituency, previously said he wished to “clear his name” after the “malicious” post.
Mr. Hancock, who has now stepped down as an MP, previously called the case “absurd” and labelled Mr. Bridgen’s claims “ridiculous.”
After the ruling, Mr. Bridgen said he is “delighted that the case is moving forward and that the judge has acknowledged that accusing someone of spouting antisemitism is extremely grave and damaging.”
“I look forward at long last to Mr. Hancock putting in a defence, which he has not done,” he added.
The court will now give directions for the progress of the action.
