Lord McAlpine dies after Twitter libel torment

In The Sunday Times of January 19 2014 the paper included the story here, 'Twitter peer dies after libel torment.' Lord McAlpine's solicitor Andrew Reid said:

"For those who put him through the stress and worry of having to take legal action, I hope that their consciences are troubled by their ill-informed and unnecessary allegations... I hope there’s a lesson in this — that people get their facts right before they open their mouths or go on Twitter."

Lord Tebbit, who was Conservative party chairman when Lord McAlpine was treasurer, said:

"I think he was... deeply upset that anybody would for a moment believe [the allegations about] him."

Lessons from McAlpine v Bercow

Ahead of the new year and thus the coming into force of the Defamation Act, it is of value to cast our eye back over the lessons we learnt from the Bercow v McAlpine case. As Feargus O’Sullivan said in The Financial Times here, although Ms Bercow’s tweet would still fall foul of the new law, the situation may nonetheless change somewhat when the Defamation Act 2013 comes into force.

Over to the May 13 High Court ruling. Presiding over the case between Bercow and McAlpine was Mr Justice Tugendhat who found that Sally Bercow had libelled Lord McAlpine by publishing on Twitter defamatory, albeit "nuanced", communications. Full judgement can be read here. Bad for law firm Carter-Ruck who had been instructed by Bercow. In his summation, the UK's senior libel judge Judge Tugendhat said:

“I find that the Tweet meant, in its natural and ordinary defamatory meaning, that the Claimant was a paedophile who was guilty of sexually abusing boys living in care. 

If I were wrong about that, I would find that the Tweet bore an innuendo meaning to the same effect.”

High Court Judge makes new Social Media Law (re: Breach of Court Injunctions)

Less than two weeks after the Hon. Mr Justice Tugendhat delivered judgment on the McAlpine v Bercow Twitter libel affair (see here and here), the UK's top media and libel judge has made new law and sent out another clear message to social media users.

Namely: the internet may have made everyone a  publisher, however the internet did not made publishing responsibility free. Therefore, don't say anything on social media you wouldn't say on a print newspaper.

This time round the message from the legal mill is a little more social media-user friendly. OK, to understand things we need to go back to here on Defero Law. In that post entitled, "Is Social Media Uncontrollable?" I talked about two men who posted images of the two men who killed Jamie Bulger. This was in breach of a court order; therefore there was a legal effect to their actions (see Social Media and the Law: Know Where You Stand, my blog on the Huffington Post).

The two men were originally convicted and handed down prison terms. Now this has changed. See tweets bellow from Adam Wagner.

TWITTER, READ THIS JUDGMENT! 2 men who shared Jamie Bulger killer pics get 9 month sentences suspended for 15 months bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/…
— Adam Wagner (@AdamWagner1) June 4, 2013

… Court says in future serious social media injunction breaches, unlikely jail sentences will be suspended. TAKE NOTE bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/…
— Adam Wagner (@AdamWagner1) June 4, 2013

Full judgement available below in tweet from the Judicial Office:

High Court judgment in HM Attorney General v Harkins & Liddle (breach of Venables/Thompson injunction) now available bit.ly/13CrlZj
— Judicial Office (@JudiciaryUK) June 4, 2013

This is another important step on the road to hammering out the law that governs activity on the social web. Just this time the judge has made new law that makes it clear what will happen if you publish comments online that breach a court order. And as Adam Wagner rightly said: "TAKE NOTE!"

This post originally appeared on the Twitter for Lawyers blog here.

The McAlpine v Bercow High Court Hearing as it Unfolded on Twitter

Full stream of live tweets from (@JackofKent) who attended the preliminary hearing at the High Court in the case of Bercow v McAlpine. Full ruling by Lord Tugendhat here.

Today at 10.30am, ruling of High Court on whether #Bercow's "Why is Lord McAlpine trending? *innocent face*" tweet was defamatory at law.
— Jack of Kent (@JackofKent) May 24, 2013

Twitter is "inherently dangerous" says David Aaronivitch

The broadcaster and journalist David Aaronivitch (@DAaronovitch) has waded into the McAlpine/Bercow affair and has added his two cents to the debate. He's thrown up some interesting points and insights. Writing in the Times (full article here) the title and header where hard hitting, going like this:

Judge Tugendhat Sends Out Social Media Warning and Advice

From the Spectator quoting Lord McAlpine's solicitor here:

"In the meantime, vindicated Lord McAlpine’s solicitor sounds a clear and concise note: ‘Mr Tugendhat’s judgment is one of great public interest and provides a warning to, and guidance for, people who use social media."

This originally appeared on Twitter for Lawyers here.

"Mr Tugendhat’s judgment is one of great public interest"

From the Spectator quoting Lord McAlpine's solicitor here:

"In the meantime, vindicated Lord McAlpine’s solicitor sounds a clear and concise note:

"Mr Tugendhat’s judgment is one of great public interest and provides a warning to, and guidance for, people who use social media."