Blogger who sued council and chief exec ordered to pay £25k damages

A blogger who sued a council and its chief executive for libel has lost her claim in the High Court and been ordered to pay £25,000 in damages after a counter-claim against her succeeded.

The background to the dispute included a number of planning applications made by Jacqui Thompson and her husband. Three made on behalf of her brother-in-law were refused by Carmarthenshire County Council.

From 1 March 2006 onwards Mrs Thompson wrote letters accusing the council’s head of planning, Eifion Bowen, of professional misconduct and corruption.

Later she also accused the chief executive, Mark James, of corruption, even though he had played no part in the planning applications and all he had done was sign a letter warning that the council was not prepared to accept any form of intimidation or harassment of officers or councillors.

Mrs Thompson published her allegations widely by email, including to the media in Wales and elected councillors. A letter on 18 October 2006 was sent, and copied to the media.

Mr Bowen – but not Mr James (at this stage) – sued for libel. Mrs Thompson did not seek to prove that her allegations of corruption were true and her defence of honest comment was struck out by the court.

Mrs and Mr Thompson agreed to settle the action on the basis of a public retraction, an apology in open court and the payment of £7,500 towards Mr Bowen’s costs. This occurred on 15 October 2007 and Mr and Mrs Thompson have been paying the costs off in instalments.

Mrs and Mr Thompson then came to believe that the council had paid Mr Bowen’s costs and alleged that they had been lied to. Allegations of perjury were published widely by email.

In March 2009, Mrs Thompson started a blog, Carmarthenshire Planning Problems and more, which was nominated for a number of awards. This suggested a significant readership, Mr Justice Tugendhat – who heard the current libel case – concluded.

The postings were all highly critical of the local authority. Mrs Thompson accepted at the trial that Carmarthenshire had not indemnified Mr Bowen for the costs of his libel action against her.

However, Mr Justice Tugendhat said, she had not removed any of the allegations of corruption and so on she had been making for the last seven years.

In 2011 – after the Department for Communities and Local Government issued a letter encouraging councils in England to allow filming of their proceedings – Mrs Thompson asked for permission to film. The council refused.

In June 2011 Mrs Thompson tried to film a meeting with her mobile phone. She was asked to stop by a council officer, Mr Davies.

Mr Justice Tugendhat found that when Mrs Thompson had left the public gallery and gone home, she made an allegation to the police that, while they were together in the public gallery, Mr Davies had assaulted her and attempted to steal her mobile phone.

“I have found that this allegation was false to her knowledge,” Mr Justice Tugendhat said. “It was an attempt to pervert the court because it exposed Mr Davies to the risk of arrest and punishment.”

The judge said this false allegation of assault had a further consequence. On 8 June 2011, the next occasion when Mrs Thompson was suspected of filming, the police were called to escort her from the building. But the police believed she was about to commit a breach of the peace and they arrested her to prevent that.

Mrs Thompson’s arrest was widely reported in the media and on the internet. Another blogger, operating under the name ‘madaxeman’ published an open letter to Carmarthenshire’s chief executive, criticising both him and the council.

Mr James responded to the madaxeman blog on 28 July 2011, circulating copies to Carmarthenshire’s 74 elected councillors.

Mrs Thompson launched a libel claim against Carmarthenshire and Mr James over his response, which – amongst other things – accused her of “running a campaign of harassment, intimidation and defamation of council staff and members for some considerable time”.

She later added a claim for breach of her rights under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (the right to respect a private life).

Mr James and Carmarthenshire's defences were justification, honest opinion and qualified privilege.

The chief executive – but not the council – also issued a Part 20 counter-claim, alleging that he had been defamed, accused of corrupion, misuse of council funds and lying.

In response to this, Mrs Thompson pleaded that the Part 20 claim was unlawful or an abuse of process because Mr James was a public figure, he had an indemnity from the council and was seeking to use the claim to put pressure on her. She also argued that the words Mr James complained of were not defamatory or were honest comment.

Following a six-day trial, Mr Justice Tugendhat rejected Mrs Thompson’s libel claim in its entirety.

He ruled that the counterclaim succeeded in respect of postings made by Mrs Thompson on 28 February 2011, 22 March and 6 April 2011 but failed in respected of other postings on 1 June and 14 July 2011.

In particular, he found that:

• Mrs Thompson was “engaged in an unlawful campaign of harassment, defamation and intimidation targeted against Mark James and other council officers”;
• This campaign was conducted through letters and e-mails which Mrs Thompson circulated to large numbers of addressees and the media, starting in March 2006, and by her blog started in 2009, and continuing thereafter;
• The campaign of harassment did not include the occasions in and between February and June 2011 when Mrs Thompson was also conducting a protest against the ban on filming the council’s proceedings with her mobile phone, subject to one exception;
• The one exception was the occasion when on and after 13 April 2011, after she left the council chamber, Mrs Thompson falsely accused Mr Davies of assaulting her and attempting to steal her phone;
• Mrs Thompson had not complained to the council that she was assaulted on 13 April 2011, nor, “so far as I have been told”, had she made a complaint to the police that she was wrongly arrested on 8 June 2011 (they arrested her to prevent a breach of the peace).

The judge also found that Mrs Thompson's Article 8 rights were not interfered with unlawfully by Mr James' comments, as she had entered the arena of public debate. The chief executive had written about her public behaviour, not about matters affecting only her private life.

Mr Justice Tugendhat, who made no ruling on whether Carmarthenshire’s ban on filming was lawful or not, concluded that Thompson’s campaign was in revenge for the refusal of various planning applications.

The judge said the council had been pursuing a legitimate aim in explaining to the public at large actions which had been publicly called into question.

“Mr James did that, and in my judgment what he did was no more than was necessary and proportionate,” he said. “He published his response no more widely than Mrs Thompson had herself published her own false version of events.”

The claimant, the judge said, had “conducted her campaign of harassment etc as publicly as she could, at first copying her letters and e-mails to the press and numerous other people and, after she had started her blog, publishing her unfounded allegations to the world at large”.

Mr Justice Tugendhat concluded there was nothing in the suggestion that it was contrary to Article 10 ECHR (freedom of expression) that a member or officer should be able to sue for libel.

“On the contrary, there would be a serious gap in the law if members and officers of a local authority (and others who work in or for other public authorities) could not sue for libel,” he said.

Mr Justice Tugendhat said he shared the concern expressed by Mrs Thompson and her counsel that a libel action might chill public discussion of matters of public interest.

But he added that where false and defamatory allegations were spread about individuals holding public offices, a libel action might be the best means of establishing the truth and preventing repetition.

On the issue of the indemnity provided by Carmarthenshire to Mr James, the judge said: "As discussed in the Comninos and McLaughlin cases, there are procedures by which the grant of an indemnity by a council to an employee in respect of the costs of litigation can be challenged.

"The fact that Mr James has received such an indemnity cannot make his Part 20 counterclaim an abuse. In any event, whether or not the grant of indemnity was open to legal challenge would require investigations of the reasons for it which have not been adduced in evidence by Mrs Thompson."

Commenting on the High Court ruling, Mr James said councils and other public bodies accepted that they were open to legitimate criticism, but this could not extend to unlawful harassment and unfounded allegations of wrongdoing by their officers.

He said: “In the course of this long-running campaign, spanning six years, she has falsely accused individuals of corruption, lying, perjury, assault and theft.

“Then on the one occasion the council responded to her attacks Mrs Thompson secured the services of specialist libel solicitors and counsel and sued for libel with the benefit of a conditional fee agreement with success fee.”

Mr James added that those who had been falsely accused had been “completely vindicated” by Mr Justice Tugendhat’s ruling.

“My only regret is that Mrs Thompson has wasted a huge amount of time and money,” Carmarthenshire’s chief executive added.

Mrs Thompson said she was “absolutely devastated” by the judgment and was in discussions with her lawyers about a possible appeal.

“I have always acted in good faith, my motives have always been sincere and have merely criticised the council where I felt it appropriate, and have never had a complaint until the counterclaim,” she insisted.

Mrs Thompson claimed that the ruling had “potentially opened the floodgates for similar actions”. She added: “I believe this judgement has dire consequences for others who publicly scrutinise and criticise their local authority, including the press.”

The claimant said she had “no idea” where she was going to get £25,000 from. “I am trying to remain positive and will try continue with my blog and calls for transparency as best I can.”