On 3 January 2012, we set the second “Inforrm” Media Law Quiz – 49 tough questions arising out of the Media Law Cases of the past 12 months. Thank you to everyone who submitted entries. Assiduous reading of the blog enabled many to spot the trick questions and the other pitfalls laid by the quizmaster. After careful analysis of the answers there was again a clear winner – once again with an impressive 100% of correct answers – Mr Benjamin Pell.
In addition to providing correct answers he also pointed out errors on the part of the quizmaster and unhelpful ambiguity in a number of the questions. This outstanding entry receives the prize of a copy of Adrian Bingham’s book “Family Newspapers? Sex, Private Life and the British Popular Press 1918-1978”.
THE INFORRM MEDIA LAW QUIZ – 2011 the Answers
1. Who said what about whom (or what), when and where?
(a) “the modern law of privacy is not concerned solely with secrets: it is also concerned importantly with intrusion”
Eady J in CTB v NGN (No.2) ([2011] EWHC 1326 (QB)) [23])
(b) “British newspapers have been sinking deeper into an unethical pit in which decency and the facts are all too often ignored”
Sarah Thornton, in the Guardian on 29 July 2011, in relation to her libel victory over the Daily Telegraph.
(c) “the only recommendation that should put be forward by Leveson is one banning by law over ambitious and under talented politicians from giving house room to proprietors who are seeking commercial gain from their contacts”
Kelvin Mackenzie, presentation to the Leveson Inquiry Seminar on Supporting a Free Press and High Standards, 12 October 2011.
(d) “does … a judge have any right to deny someone who works ten hours a day in a Sunderland call centre and lives for football, the right to buy a paper that reveals the sexual peccadilloes of one of his team’s millionaire married players”
Paul Dacre, presentation to the Leveson Inquiry Seminar on Supporting a Free Press and High Standards, 12 October 2011.
(e) “The Defendant is a public nuisance. He is in effect a vexatious litigant who is a defendant”
Tugendhat J of Rick Kordowski, in Law Society v Kordowski [2011] EWHC 3185 (QB) [183].
(f) “Don’t start me on the subject of misrepresented titles or names. I suffer that to this day”
Lord Justice Leveson, in the course of evidence on 20 December 2011.
2. In relation to privacy injunctions:
(a) In which three cases were appeals against the refusal of injunctions successful in whole or part in 2011?
JIH v News Group Newspapers, ETK v News Group Newspapers, Ambrosiadou v Coward.
(b) How many super-injunctions were granted in 2011?
Zero
(c) How many new privacy injunctions were granted to prevent media publication after the date of the report of the Master Rolls’ Committee on Super-Injunctions?
Zero
(d) There were three cases in 2011 in which injunctions restraining the publication of the names of claimants were discharged. Who were the three claimants who were named?
The quizmaster had these three: Goodwin v NGN (Sir Fred Goodwin) , WER v REW (Christopher Hutcheson) and AMM v HXV (Jeremy Clarkson). Mr Pell mentioned Goodwin and and Clarkson but pointed out that the identity of the three claimants in Goldsmith v BCD was disclosed on 22 March 2011 (Zac and Sheherazade Goldsmith and Jemima Khan). In the circumstances, we award him full marks for this answer.
3. On this date three unsuccessful applications were made to discharge the same injunction:
(a) What was the date?
23 May 2011
(b) What was the name of the action?
CTB v News Group Newspapers
(c) What were the other two media law judgments delivered on the same date?
Goodwin v News Group Newspapers and TSE v News Group Newspapers.
4. On this date a Lord Justice overturned two specialist defamation judges:
(a) What was the date?
22 June 2011
(b) Who was the Lord Justice
Lord Justice Leveson
(c) What were the cases?
Thornton v Telegraph Media, Shergill v Purewal.
5. What was the largest libel award in the English courts in 2011 and where were the defendants based?
The sum of £175,000 in Al-Amoudi v Kifle [2011] EWHC 2037 (QB). The defendant were based in the United States. Our quizmaster had in mind the fact that websites to which the publication related were based in Springfield VA, USA, but Mr Pell’s answer that Mr Kifle is based in Washington DC is in fact correct.
6. What was the first redacted document generated by the Leveson Inquiry
The Letter Of Appointment sent by Baroness Browning and the Rt Hon Jeremy Hunt MP to Leveson LJ on 28 July 2011.
7. Which Core Participant at the Leveson Inquiry did not complain about people watching him in bed with a QC’s daughter this year and why?
Steve Coogan – who was in bed with Emily Mortimer in the film “Our Idiot Brother”
8. In which case did the parties spend the 2010 Christmas vacation waiting for the first instance judgment and the 2011 Christmas vacation waiting for the judgment of the Court of Appeal?
Cambridge v Makin
9. What is the significance of the following numbers for media lawyers in 2011:
(a) 175,000
The highest Award of libel damages in 2011 – Al-Amoudi v Kifle [2011] EWHC 2037 (QB)
(b) 16, 8 and 1
The number of arrests in 2011 in Operations Weeting, Elveden and Tuleta respectively.
(c) 30,000
The highest Award of privacy damages in 2011, Cooper v Turrell [2011] EWHC 3269 (QB)). Mr Pell’s answer – the damages awarded by Tugendhat J in Cambridge v Makin – was also correct. The quizmaster apologises for an ambiguous question.
(d) Zero
The number of defamation jury trials in 2011. Mr Pell rightly goes on to point that this is a poor question as there could be many other answers as well, “ranging from the number of successful claimants in privacy trials to the number of messages that the police say the News Of The World deleted after hacking into Milly Dowler’s voicemails“
10.
(a) Which award winning investigative journalist, said to be nicknamed “Onan the Barbarian” by his colleagues was a defendant, a claimant and a witness in 2011?
Neville Thurlbeck
(b) What were the courts or tribunals involved in each case?
The French Court where he was a defendant to a claim brought by Max Mosley, the Employment Tribunal where he was a claimant in a claim against News Group Newspapers and the Leveson Inquiry
11. Who or what do the following have in common:
(a) Rose West, Ken Dodd, Sara Thornton?
Brian Leveson was involved in cases relating to all three. He prosecuted Rose West and Ken Dodd and was on the panel in Thornton v Telegraph Media Group
(b) Eady J, Richard Ferguson QC, Leveson LJ
The quiz master’s answer as “All appeared at the Rose West trial – Brian Leveson for the prosecution, Richard Ferguson for the defendant and David Eady for the press. Mr Pell’s answer was “George Carman QC who defeated them in high profile jury trials: Walker & ors v Yachting World, Branson v Snowden & G Tech and R v Ken Dodd respectively”.
(c) Benjamin Pell, Lady Heather Mills Macartney, Clive Goodman
The quizmaster’s answer was “All were mentioned by Piers Stefan Pughe-Morgan in the course of his evidence to the Leveson Inquiry on 20 December 2011”. We however prefer the answer given by Mr Pell namely that they were all Trending on Twitter during Piers Morgan’s apperance at the Leveson Inquiry on 20 December 2011 in which he was asked to explain comments he had made in his diaries or in the press about them.
(c) Sweeney J, Eady J, Mann J and Vos J?
All of these judges heard applications in the phone hacking cases where third party disclosure is sought from the Commissioner for the Metropolitan Police and which involve Glenn Mulcaire’s notebooks.
(d) Jonathan King, the Surrey Police, Elaine Decoulos, and Bob Crow
All were refused Core Participant status by the Leveson Inquiry.
Congratulations to Benji! Once again, he has proved to be the most knowledgable on media law statistics and news. An amazing media law encyclopedia. Inforrm should ask for the results of their very difficult quiz to be read into the record of The Leveson Inquiry and recommend Benjamin Pell as a consultant to them.
They surely need one, as they appear to have no one on their staff with sufficient knowledge of the latest in media law. He could also assist them in other areas, such as newsgathering. He has been referred to in the Inquiry at least 5 times I believe.
For the record, I am still trying to become a Core Participant and David Sherborne does not represent me. You never published my judgment from the Divisional Court. It was not held in private!