Former Health Secretary Matt Hancock resumed his high court battle against his one-time Conservative colleague on Wednesday, attempting for a second time to have the libel case brought by ex-MP Andrew Bridgen thrown out.
The allegedly defamatory post was made after Bridgen shared a link to an article concerning data about deaths and other adverse reactions suspected of being caused by the vaccines, commenting, “As one consultant cardiologist said to me, this is the biggest crime against humanity since the Holocaust.”
Previous Failed Attempt
Hancock unsuccessfully asked a judge to throw out the case last year, failing in his argument that he had not libelled Bridgen because the Twitter post did not name him. Mrs. Justice Collins Rice ruled that the post was a case of “reference innuendo” and that the hypothetical ordinary person familiar with the issues would understand that Hancock was referring to Bridgen.
Hancock did not attend Wednesday’s hearing where his barrister again asked the court to rule in his favour before a trial. Hancock did not use the defence of truth but argued instead that his words were his honestly held opinion of Bridgen and did not cause serious reputational damage to the former MP.
Bridgen’s legal team labelled this attempt from Hancock a “desperate last throw of the dice” and also asked the court to rule in their client’s favour before a trial.
‘Honest Opinion’ Defence
He continued: “Mr. Hancock stands by that tweet. His evidence that is put before the court is that this is his honestly held opinion. It was then, and it is now.”Eardley added, “The defence of honest opinion must succeed and there is no need to go to trial.”
The KC told the court that Bridgen, who attended the hearing accompanied by some of his supporters, is only challenging the “characterisation of his tweet as anti-Semitic,” rather than other parts of Hancock’s post.
Eardley added in written submissions that the post “does not allege that Mr. Bridgen is antisemitic,“ but ”alleges that he had said something that morning which was antisemitic in character.”
Bridgen said previously he wishes to clear his name through the libel action and claimed that Hancock was “activated by malice” and had “a motive to discredit me” because of the former health secretary’s role in promoting the vaccines as “safe and effective.”
Hancock resigned as health secretary after footage emerged of him kissing an aide in breach of the social distancing rules which he helped impose on the public, and did not atand for reelection in his West Suffolk constituency last year.
He has previously branded the case “absurd” and labelled Bridgen’s claims “ridiculous.”
‘Costs Pressure’
Barrister Christopher Newman, for Bridgen, said in written submissions that Hancock’s bid is “hopeless” and that his client has “a self-evidently strong case” as to harm caused by the post.He said: “The court will be invited to dismiss the application, and certify it as totally without merit.
“It can only have been made tactically to put costs pressure on Mr. Bridgen, in the hope that Mr. Bridgen can be bullied by the risk of a contested hearing into withdrawing his claim before Mr. Hancock has to admit liability.
“In summary, the application can be seen to be a desperate last throw of the dice by a defendant with no good defence.”
The skeleton argument points to the use of the word “since” in Bridgen’s post as evidence that he was in no way attempting to trivialise the Holocaust, which Newman said means that Hancock’s argument that he honestly believes the 17-word post was anti-Semitic in character must fail.
Bridgen’s submission points to the fact that Hancock has refused to delete the post, which the judge has already agreed is “defamatory under the common law meaning.” Bridgen deleted his post in which he referenced the cardiologist making the comparison to the Holocaust and has apologised to anyone who felt offended.
In a ruling last June, Collins Rice found Hancock’s post was not “definitively condemning the MP as an individual” and that the majority of the publication was an “expression of opinion.”
Lost Deposit
Bridgen has told The Epoch Times he does not accept the election result was genuine as it does not match the positive response he received from constituents throughout the campaign.Although Bridgen received condemnation from some in the Jewish community for his Twitter post, this was not universal. In an open letter to the then-prime minister, Jewish scientists from around the world called on Sunak to withdraw claims that Bridgen was guilty of making anti-Semitic comments.
The group, which included epidemiology expert and former adviser to the Israeli Healthcare Public Committee, Dr. Ifat Abadi-Korek, claimed that branding Bridgen as anti-Semitic “seized upon an opportunity” to criticise him for questioning vaccine safety and efficacy, and said that such criticism was a threat to free speech.
“It seems that you and others have seized upon the opportunity to raise the issue of antisemitism in order to limit the free speech of those who raise legitimate concerns about the efficacy and safety of these Covid vaccines.
“Weaponisation of the important issue of antisemitism for these purposes is particularly objectionable and disrespectful towards its victims,” they continued, adding that in their view, the vaccine rollout “IS the biggest crime against humanity since the Holocaust.”
Bridgen initially supported the rollout of the vaccines and took two doses of the AstraZeneca jab, which he has said damaged his health.
He told The Epoch Times that he knows of other MPs and former MPs who told him privately that they believe they or their loved ones had also been harmed by the vaccines, but that they did not wish to “take on big phama” by speaking out.
A judgment on whether or not the case will proceed to a full trial will be handed down in due course.
