 |
| Chris Packham - wrongly accused |
TV NATURALIST Chris Packham has been awarded £90,000 after pursuing what proved to be a (mostly) successful defamation case in the High Court.
The broadcaster was suing three individuals - Dominic Wightman, Nigel Bean and Paul Read - over a series of reports published in Country Squire Magazine, an online publication set up in 2016, and in social media, notably Twitter.
He maintained the material - particularly allegations of fraud and dishonesty - was untrue, hurtful and potentially harmful to his reputation.
Following a 10-day hearing earlier this month, the judge, the Hon Justice Saini, issued his 58-page judgement earlier today.
It concludes: "Mr Packham’s defamation claims against Mr Wightman and Mr Bean succeed.
"Mr Packham did not commit any acts of fraud or dishonesty.
"I will enter judgment for damages against Mr Wightman and Mr Bean in the sum of £90,000."
However, Mr Packham's case against Mr Read was unsuccessful after it emerged that the latter was only a proof reader of the reports, which he checked for spelling and grammar errors, not an instigator of the content.
The broadcaster will have to pay at least part of the legal cost of Mr Read who is a retired computer programmer.
Of Mr Wightman, who is Editor of Country Squire Magazine, the Judge says: "I found him to be an honest witness in the sense that he sincerely believed in the truth of the evidence he gave.
"He is an articulate and intelligent person.
"That said, I approach his evidence with a significant qualification, and with some caution.
"That is because. both in his written and in his oral evidence, he gave me the impression of a person who had lost all objectivity when it came to Mr Packham.
"That meant he was unable to see any act of Mr Packham as being other than underhand or dishonest.
"Most striking is that he was willing to make and pursue allegations which I consider had no factual basis.
"Mr Wightman’s negative views of Mr Packham were, I am sure, reflective of what I consider was his them-and-us attitude, with the traditional countryside on one side (those he described as hunters, farmers and landowners), and what he and Mr Bean perceived as those who were “left” leaning, including the BBC and animal rights activists, on the other side.
"In Mr Wightman’s worldview, Mr Packham falls within this second camp as a person described by him as being on the “public teat”, benefitting from BBC licence fee money.
"Parts of his articles show an ever increasing level of rage towards Mr Packham, including offensive references to his neurodiversity as a claimed excuse used by Mr Packham."
The Judge describes Mr Bean as "an enthusiastic horse rider" who regularly rode to hounds until the Hunting Act 2004.
"Mr Bean accepted the description given of him by Mr Wightman as a 'truffle pig investigator' for Country Squire Magazine.
"In his evidence, he explained he had first-hand experience of the tactics of anti-hunt saboteurs and described their motives and purpose as being to 'harass legal activities in the countryside'.
"Mr Bean has written extensively about the methods, activities and what he calls the 'sheer dishonesty' of the hunt saboteurs and animal rights extremists on his blog, The Aldenham.
"He associates Mr Packham with such persons.
"I found Mr Bean to be an honest witness in the sense that he sincerely believed that he had uncovered wrongdoing by Mr Packham and sincerely believes in the right of those who participate in traditional countryside activities and pastimes to do so.
"However, as with Mr Wightman, Mr Bean had lost objectivity and he had an 'agenda' against Mr Packham.
"He saw Mr Packham as being part of a 'left leaning' part of society whose views he opposed.
"Mr Bean was unwilling to accept that any of Mr Packham’s actions could be explicable as innocent as opposed to fraudulent."
The Judge found Mr Packham and entirely reliable witness, but said there was "no proper evidential basis" for inferring tweets and retweets caused any harm to his reputation, let alone any harm that could properly be characterised as 'serious'.
The Judge also noted that one article gratuitously mocked Mr Packham’s manner of speaking (“intwepid hewo”), while others descended into "sinister threats and an extraordinary level of vitriol", including offensive references both to Mr Packham’s neurodiversity and to abuse of his solicitors, Leigh Day.
He said: "These were not the product of any acts of responsible journalism."
The Judge acknowledged that the articles may have led to others posting "threatening and vile material" about Mr Packham and his family online, but this did not incline him to award "aggravated damages", especially as Mr Wightman "has also been the victim of inappropriate and offensive communications (including highly distressing trolling) from those who oppose his views on countryside issues".
The Judge said that libel damages have a threefold purpose as follows:
(1) to compensate for distress and hurt feelings;
(2) to compensate for actual injury to reputation which has been proved or might reasonably be inferred;
(3) to serve as an outward and visible sign of vindication.
Will the court case - and the judgement - draw a line under the matter?
That remains to be seen.
No comments:
Post a Comment