Richard’s many interests invariably blossomed into expertise – from fine wine (his cellar matched his knowledge), to the dry fly of choice for testing conditions, to Mozart’s life and works. His chosen area of the law, the law of defamation with its unending search for the civilised balance between the right to reputation and freedom of expression in an ever-evolving social context, was no exception. His natural leaning may have been towards the latter.
His joint Report on Thames Television’s documentary, Death on the Rock, infuriated Margaret Thatcher but showed a deep understanding of the limitations under which public interest journalism operates, but he was also a powerful champion of the wrongly accused. He was a true jurist, as shown by his leading role since 1983 in editing Duncan & Neill on Defamation, which was regarded by many as having a third of the length and twice the clarity of the then standard textbook.
His professional career has been admirably covered in the broadsheet obituaries, which understandably focussed on the high-profile victories, most notably as junior Counsel for the successful newspaper in the Moonies trial and as leading Counsel for Deborah Lipstadt and Penguin against David Irving, the holocaust denier, a role immortalised by the late Tom Wilkinson in the film Denial. But his less visible contributions were no less important. He restrained many an enraged client from bringing unwise proceedings while securing quick settlements and apologies for meritorious claimants, often instructed by Lord Goodman on behalf of his extensive portfolio of public figures.
Legally, the Times’s successful appeal to the Supreme Court in 2012 in the case of Flood has lasting importance in setting the parameters for public interest journalism, and Richard’s submissions for the newspaper are as illuminating as the judgment. For an illustration of a simple point made well, consider the case of Cruddas where two journalists posing as foreign investors covertly recorded an interview with the Claimant, a former co-Treasurer of the Conservative Party. The trial Judge found for the Claimant. The appeal in part succeeded and the Court of Appeal records this pithy exchange of submissions:
“Mr Browne submits that the court should look at both the exculpatory statements and the inculpatory statements; the exculpatory statements prevail. Mr Rampton ripostes that the inculpatory statements should not be there at all. I agree with Mr Rampton”.
One case which has not figured is his role as junior to the formidable late John Matthew QC in the failed criminal libel action brought by Roger Gleaves, the self-styled Bishop of Medway against the authors of Johnny Go Home, Michael Willis and John Deakin, originally a ground-breaking television expose by Granada of the exploitation of poor children who fled south to London and were preyed on by Gleaves and in his hostels. Leaders take the glory, but Richard was a tireless junior, and I (very much the greenhorn second junior) learnt hugely from his attention to detail and unerring eye for relevance.
These cases illustrate Richard’s particular forte in defending complex public interest journalism. His junior in Flood, Cruddas and Irving was Heather Rogers which illustrates another feature of Richard’s personal and professional life – he had lifelong friendships with those who led him including Lord Rawlinson, John Matthew and Brian Neill, but also in turn with those he led. It is no coincidence that so many of his juniors have gone on to forge highly distinguished careers in their own right: the late, much missed Heather Rogers KC, Dame Victoria Sharp and Lord Garnier. In the law, as in so many other endeavours, a happy team tends to be a successful one. Put shortly, he was much loved by many.
His advocacy, oral or written, resembled his handwriting: forceful, elegant and clear. He would quote Lord Rawlinson’s question to an infatuated Moonie about his first encounter with the cult’s leader (most of us would open: when did you first meet?) – when did you first gaze upon his countenance? – as an exemplar of the art of cross-examination. The witness swallowed the question whole, and the jury nodded sagely to each other.
He was infuriatingly clever and completed the horizontal clues before the vertical ones in the Times crossword, while we lesser mortals struggled to get halfway, but he could not have worn his cleverness more lightly – and had an ever-open door to sharing his wisdom. I should know. I came calling often.
With his wife Carolyn, the hospitality dispensed at their house in Barnes to all ages was legendary, as was their gift for almost invariably conjuring perfect weather.
Only once was his career threatened. At the Chambers Cricket Match in 1979 Richard’s father, whose moral strength he shared, gave the Senior Clerk out leg before wicket, prompting the surprising response: ‘you can’t be effing out to an effing full toss.’ We feared the worst but should have known better. Cream of that quality comes to the top.
Richard Rampton KC was called to the bar in November 1965 and took silk in 1987. He practised at the libel bar from Chambers at 1 Brick Court throughout his professional career and was Head of Chambers from 2000-2007. He appeared in many of the leading defamation cases over a period of over 40 years, including the case of Irving v Penguin Books [2000] EWHC QB 155 and McDonalds v Steel [1997] EWHC QB 366. Obituaries have been published in the Telegraph and the Guardian.
What a great obit for a great man