In the case of Vince v Lord Bailey of Paddington ([2025] EWHC 287 (KB). Pepperall J determined the natural and ordinary meaning of comments about the claimant made by the defendant during a broadcast on GB News and dealt with his application for summary judgment. This was only partially successful and the matter must now proceed to trial.
Background
Mr Dale Vince OBE, a major donor to the Labour Party, was interviewed on Times Radio on 9 October 2023 . In the course of that interview he said, in relation to Hamas “one man’s freedom fight is another man’s terrorist”.
In March 2024 there was a public uproar regarding comments made by Frank Hester, a Conservative donor, about the Rt. Hon Diane Abott. On 13 and 14 March 2024 Guido Fawkes published two articles in respect of Mr Vince’s views about Hamas, the former included a short extract from the Time Radio interview. On 14 March 2024 Lord Bailey appeared on a panel GB News with, inter alia, Matthew Laza, and was questioned about Mr Hester’s comments. Lord Bailey referred to Mr Vince’s comments on Times Radio.
“Lord Bailey: Let’s talk about paying back donations. You’ve had major Labour Party donors who have called Hamas freedom fighters.
Matthew Laza: Who?
Lord Bailey: Dale Vince. There you go, Dale Vince. He said, um, one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.
There was a further exchange, in the course of which Mr Laza said of Mr Vince “he didn’t say that he thought they were freedom fighters”. The full relevant exchange is set out at [38]
Mr Vince threatened legal action and on 2 September 2024 Lord Bailey sought crowd funding to help him to fight his case, making an appeal on the CrowdJustice website.
Mr Vince brought a libel action in respect of the words spoken by Lord Bailey on GB News and the publication on CrowdJustice. The Master directed trial of preliminary issues on meaning, whether the words complained of were an expression of opinion and, if so whether the basis of the opinion was indicated. Lord Bailey also made an application for summary judgment. By an application made 7 days before the hearing Lord Maily also sought the trial of further preliminary issues.
Judgment
Meaning
Mr Vince contended that the words meant that
“The Claimant had, or it was reasonably suspected that he had, endorsed the terrorist acts of Hamas by stating words to the effect that its members are freedom fighters.”
Lord Bailey’s case was that the words meant
“The Claimant stated that one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter in relation to Hamas giving rise to the reasonable interpretation that its members are freedom fighters.”
When determining meaning, the Judge took into account the fact that the comments had been made in the course of a broadcast (see [49]-[50]) and, in particular, the effect of Mr Laza’s interventions. He concluded that the natural and ordinary meaning of the words used in the broadcast by Lord Bailey was as follows
“1. Mr Vince has said of the terrorist organisation Hamas that one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.
2. There are reasonable grounds to suspect that, by using such words, Mr Vince has called the terrorist organisation Hamas freedom fighters”. [56]
The Judge went on to hold that the first of these statements was one of fact [60] but that, in relation to the second:
“the impression created by Lord Bailey’s statement was that it was his opinion that, by saying in respect of Hamas that one man’s terrorist was another man’s freedom fighter, Mr Vince had called Hamas freedom fighters” [67].
The Judge then held that statements made in the course of Lord Bailey’s crowd funding appeal were also expressions of opinion [75]
Summary Judgment
The Judge then considered Lord Bailey’s application for summary judgment. He held that there was a triable issue as to whether the imputation was substantially true, as “it cannot be said that Mr Vince has no real prospect of defeating Lord Bailey’s case under s.3(4).” [118]
Further, the Judge did not “accept that it would be proper to find that there is no issue to be tried under s.3(5)” [119]. He held that it was not necessary nor possible at the interim stage to determine whether Lord Bailey had in fact watched the entirety of the Times Radio interview [119]. If he had done, there was an argument that he should have realised that Mr Vince was not calling Hamas freedom fighters and that later reporting’s of the interview were a misrepresentation.
The application for summary judgment was, therefore, dismissed.
The Application For The Trial Of Further Preliminary Issues
The Judge agreed that he should decide substantial truth and the third condition of the honest opinion defence (s.3(4)) as preliminary issues on the basis that Lord Bailey cannot raise any defence hereafter on the basis of additional facts once the application has been determined [132].
He went on to reject the truth defence, concluding
“when the entire Times Radio interview is taken in the round and the matter is considered objectively, it was not substantially true to say that there were reasonable grounds for suspecting that Mr Vince called Hamas freedom fighters. He used a cliché that identified that there are two sides to every dispute. The point he was making was that in the west Hamas is regarded as a terrorist organisation, whereas those viewing the dispute through the Palestinian lens might regard them as freedom fighters. He expressed sympathy with the broader Palestinian cause but, if the dichotomy is between those who regard Hamas as terrorists and those who regard them as freedom fighters, he had already stated his position at the start of the interview by agreeing that Hamas are terrorists” [134].
However, the Judge found in favour for Lord Bailey on the third condition under s.3 of honest opinion. That on the balance of probabilities an honest person could have held the opinion that Mr Vince called Hamas freedom fighters and so forming the “parasitic opinion” that Mr Vince is an apologist for Hamas [135].
Threatened Publication Claim
As to the threatened publication of a letter from Lord Bailey’s former solicitors the Judge found that “there is no purpose to be served in embarking on a meaning determination of an unpublished letter” [145]. This was a matter to be determined by an application for interim relief, at trial, or both.
Note: The owner of Guido Fowkes subsequently agreed to pay damages to Mr Vince arising out of the article that was published.
Leave a Reply