Hamilton & Anor v Clifford, Court of Appeal - Queen's Bench Division, June 22, 2004, [2004] EWHC 1542 (QB)
Linked as:
Extract
Hamilton & Anor v Clifford, Court of Appeal - Queen's Bench Division, June 22, 2004, [2004] EWHC 1542 (QB)
SMITH BERNAL WORDWAVE
HQ02X02599 Neutral Citation Number: [2004] EWHC 1542 (QB)IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION Royal Courts of Justice StrandLondon WC2 Tuesday, 22 June 2004 B E F O R E: MR JUSTICE EADY - - - - - - -CHRISTINE HAMILTON NEIL HAMILTON (CLAIMANTS)-v-MAX CLIFFORD (DEFENDANT) - - - - - - -Tape Transcription of Smith Bernal WordWave Limited.190 Fleet Street London EC4A 2AG.Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7831 8838.(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) - - - - - - - MR R HARTLEY QC AND MS S PALIN (instructed by Pinkerfields, London W4) appeared on behalf of the CLAIMANTMR P MOLONEY QC AND MS C EVANS (instructed by Clintons, London WC2B) appeared on behalf of the DEFENDANT - - - - - - -J U D G M E N T MR JUSTICE EADY: The factual background to the litigation1. Mr and Mrs Neil Hamilton seek remedies in respect of no less than six alleged slanders and seven alleged libels, all of which are attributed to Mr Max Clifford, who has been described as "a top publicist". In six instances what is said against him is that he spoke defamatory words to at least one journalist which led to the publication of corresponding libels in the relevant newspaper. In a distinct category are the words spoken by Mr Clifford on the morning of 15 August 2001 in the course of a GMTV interview which, if defamatory, would be classified by statute as libel rather than slander.2. I need to set out each group of words separately because I shall have to address them individually for the purposes of the various applications now before me. Before doing so, however, I should set the scene briefly by explaining that the background to this flurry of journalistic activity was the arrest of Mr and Mrs Hamilton on 10 August 2001 in circumstances which attracted enormous publicity and became notorious. They had been accused of serious misconduct several months earlier by a woman called Nadine Milroy-Sloan. She dishonestly cooked up allegations that they had been present in Ilford on 5 May 2001, when she claimed to have been raped. She reported to police that they had in effect been encouraging or participating in the criminal acts. The police, of course, had no choice but to take such allegations seriously and to investigate them thoroughly, however ludicrous they might appear to the ordinary reader. 3. It duly emerged after a long interval that the whole thing was fantasy and no doubt motivated by a desire to make money. Miss Milroy-Sloan was eventually convicted at the Central Criminal Court and sentenced to three years' imprisonment.4. Two days before the occasion of the alleged rape, she had already approached Mr Max Clifford for advice on selling a story to the tabloids and how...See the full content of this document
Sponsored links
