Council libel case prompts 'Leader' from The Times
The much-debated libel case in the High Court - Jacqui Thompson v Mark James and vice versa - made it into The Times last week.
Wednesday saw The Times devote a leading article (comment) to the case.
The Times operates behind a paywall on the internet, so for the benefit of those who missed it (or don't have access rights) here is the article.
State versus Citizen
Carmarthenshire council is behaving with arrogance and defensiveness
A chunk of West Wales has decamped to the High Court in London, where it has been filling out Court 14 in an expensive libel trial, partly funded by taxpayers. It is a case that has its origins in two decisions — made three years apart by Carmarthenshire council — concerning Mrs Jacqui Thompson, a woman apparently as welcome to council leaders as chicken pox is to a primary school.
In 2011 Mrs Thompson, a long-term critic of the council, began to film sessions of the planning committee, using the camera on her mobile phone. Someone in officialdom decided that not only did they not enjoy this form of scrutiny, but that it should be stopped.
A council employee approached Mrs Thompson and, putting out his hand to cover her phone, asked her to desist. On another occasion the police were called. Mrs Thompson still insisted on her right to film proceedings and was arrested and taken to the police station for two hours. She was then released without charge.
The decision to prevent the filming was as perverse as the arrest. One problem that local councils do not suffer from is too much public interest in their proceedings. The subsequent attempts to discover bye-laws and problems in principle with the filming made the council look even more ridiculous. Especially since the Government had only just issued guidance for English councils encouraging them to “take a welcoming approach to those who want to bring local news stories to a wider audience”.
Mrs Thompson was incensed. A war of words was renewed between her and the council, in the course of which certain comments were made to councillors by the council chief executive, Mark James. Mrs Thompson decided that these comments were defamatory and brought a case for libel against Mr James.
What happened next takes us back to the other decision of Carmarthenshire council, made in 2008, to permit the authority to back its employees in actions for defamation or libel. So at the High Court Mr James is now counter-suing Mrs Thompson for supposedly libellous remarks made about him on her blog. But unlike Mrs Thompson, whose action has to be funded out of her own purse, Mr James’s case is being supported by the funds and the personnel of Carmarthenshire Council itself.
Carmarthenshire Council is not alone. Other councils are prepared to use taxpayers’ money to protect their staff and officers from what they see as unfair attack. This is despite two judgments, one involving The Times and Derbyshire County Council. The Derbyshire judgment established, in effect, that the State should not sue its citizens and should not pay for its employees to do so. Last May in Cardiff, Mr Justice Beatson added that public authorities needed to “possess a thicker skin and greater tolerance than ordinary members of the public” in respect of what was said and written about them.
Carmarthenshire council was clearly not listening. Indeed, whatever the outcome of the case in the High Court, it should be clear that the council has in both instances acted arrogantly and defensively. It has wielded excessive official and financial power against a lone citizen and has thereby become a case study in how not to behave in an era of transparency and accountability.
Carmarthenshire council is behaving with arrogance and defensiveness
A chunk of West Wales has decamped to the High Court in London, where it has been filling out Court 14 in an expensive libel trial, partly funded by taxpayers. It is a case that has its origins in two decisions — made three years apart by Carmarthenshire council — concerning Mrs Jacqui Thompson, a woman apparently as welcome to council leaders as chicken pox is to a primary school.
In 2011 Mrs Thompson, a long-term critic of the council, began to film sessions of the planning committee, using the camera on her mobile phone. Someone in officialdom decided that not only did they not enjoy this form of scrutiny, but that it should be stopped.
A council employee approached Mrs Thompson and, putting out his hand to cover her phone, asked her to desist. On another occasion the police were called. Mrs Thompson still insisted on her right to film proceedings and was arrested and taken to the police station for two hours. She was then released without charge.
The decision to prevent the filming was as perverse as the arrest. One problem that local councils do not suffer from is too much public interest in their proceedings. The subsequent attempts to discover bye-laws and problems in principle with the filming made the council look even more ridiculous. Especially since the Government had only just issued guidance for English councils encouraging them to “take a welcoming approach to those who want to bring local news stories to a wider audience”.
Mrs Thompson was incensed. A war of words was renewed between her and the council, in the course of which certain comments were made to councillors by the council chief executive, Mark James. Mrs Thompson decided that these comments were defamatory and brought a case for libel against Mr James.
What happened next takes us back to the other decision of Carmarthenshire council, made in 2008, to permit the authority to back its employees in actions for defamation or libel. So at the High Court Mr James is now counter-suing Mrs Thompson for supposedly libellous remarks made about him on her blog. But unlike Mrs Thompson, whose action has to be funded out of her own purse, Mr James’s case is being supported by the funds and the personnel of Carmarthenshire Council itself.
Carmarthenshire Council is not alone. Other councils are prepared to use taxpayers’ money to protect their staff and officers from what they see as unfair attack. This is despite two judgments, one involving The Times and Derbyshire County Council. The Derbyshire judgment established, in effect, that the State should not sue its citizens and should not pay for its employees to do so. Last May in Cardiff, Mr Justice Beatson added that public authorities needed to “possess a thicker skin and greater tolerance than ordinary members of the public” in respect of what was said and written about them.
Carmarthenshire council was clearly not listening. Indeed, whatever the outcome of the case in the High Court, it should be clear that the council has in both instances acted arrogantly and defensively. It has wielded excessive official and financial power against a lone citizen and has thereby become a case study in how not to behave in an era of transparency and accountability.
Meanwhile, Jacqui Thompson was also interview by the prestigious Radio 4 Today programme.
You can hear the interview on this link -
Comments