ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
MR JUSTICE MITTING
HQ13D06031
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL |
||
B e f o r e :
LADY JUSTICE SHARP DBE
and
SIR JOHN LAWS
____________________
RONALD TERANCE STOCKER |
Appellant |
|
- and - |
||
NICOLA STOCKER |
Respondent |
____________________
Manuel Barca QC instructed by SA Law LLP for the Respondent
Hearing date: 30 January 2018
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
Lady Justice Sharp:
Nicola Stocker: "I hear you have been together 2 years? If so u might like to ask him who he was in bed with the last time he was arrested…"
…
Nicola Stocker: "…Wouldn't bring it up last time I accused him of cheating he spent a night in the cells, tried to strangle me. Police don't take too kindly to finding your wife with your handprints round her neck. But don't worry you will get a nice watch for Christmas!"
…
Deborah Bligh: "why did terry get arrested?"
Nicola Stocker: "…Which time?"
Deborah Bligh: "why has he been arrested???"
Nicola Stocker: "well u know about him trying to strangle me, then he was removed from the house following a number of threats he made and some gun issues I believe and then the police felt he had broken the terms of the non molestation order."
Nicola Stocker: "All quite traumatic really"
i) had tried to kill the appellant by strangling her, for which he was arrested by police;ii) had also threatened the appellant and breached a non-molestation order protecting her, for which he was also arrested;
iii) had been arrested countless times and accordingly, it was to be inferred, was a dangerous and thoroughly disreputable man.
i) The respondent violently gripped the appellant's neck which inhibited her breathing and put her in fear that he intended to kill her.ii) In consequence, the appellant was arrested.
iii) The respondent threatened the appellant. In consequence, the respondent was arrested.
iv) The respondent breached a non-molestation order, the purpose of which was to protect the appellant.
v) Alternatively, there were reasonable grounds to suspect that the respondent had breached the order, in consequence of which he was arrested.
vi) The respondent has been arrested on another occasion.
vii) The respondent is dangerous and disreputable.
"In an action for libel or slander in respect of words containing two or more distinct charges against the plaintiff, a defence of justification shall not fail by reason only that the truth of every charge is not proved if the words not proved to be true do not materially injure the plaintiff's reputation having regard to the truth of the remaining charges."
"27. Mr Davenport [Counsel for the defendant] submits that a party is only liable in defamation for a republication of words uttered by him if he intended or authorised the republication. Mr Browne [Counsel for the claimant] submits it is enough if the party ought reasonably to have foreseen the republication. The debate between them was informed by a distinction between two situations in which the legal consequences of a republication may fall to be considered. The first is where, as here, the claimant sues on the republication: that is to say, his cause of action consists in it. The second is where he sues on the original publication only, and relies on the republication as swelling the damages. It is well established that in the latter case the defendant (who ex hypothesi is liable for the original publication) will be responsible for additional damage occasioned by the republication if he should reasonably have foreseen that it would take place: see for example McManus v Beckham [2002] 1 WLR 2982. Mr Browne relies in particular on Broxton v McLelland [1995] EMLR 485, Richardson v Schwarzenegger [2004] EWHC QB 2422 (another decision of Eady J) and Mahfouz v Brisard [2005] EWHC QB 2304 to show that in the former case the test is the same: reasonable foreseeability is enough to found liability. Mr Davenport says that the learning betrays some uncertainty on the question, and that so much is demonstrated by the leading textbooks; he refers to the current editions of Duncan and Neill on Defamation at paragraphs 8.15 – 8.17 and of Gatley on Libel and Slander paragraph 6.36. He submits that "principle and consistency favour [the] higher test... where the claimant seeks to make the original publisher liable as a joint tortfeasor for the separate tort generated by the republication" (supplemental skeleton argument paragraph 106).
28. As I have indicated, the defendant is in my judgment liable on the facts for the republication (subject to any available defences) whatever the test. By giving the interview in the sure apprehension that it was to be broadcast in the United Kingdom he intended or authorised that event. If my Lord and my Lady agree with that conclusion, it becomes unnecessary to resolve the legal issue as to which test is correct. Nor do I think it appropriate to do so, since it seems to me with respect that these may be deeper waters than counsel have acknowledged. If Mr Browne is right, the tort of defamation would be located (at least in the republication case) closer to the territory of claims in negligence, where reasonable foreseeability of harm is a prime constituent of the duty of care. That might be apt for the protection of reputation seen as akin to a right of property. But I incline to think that the modern law in this area should more visibly occupy the legal territory of privacy and free expression, and the tensions between them; and to that end the tort of defamation should excoriate not carelessness, but knowing or deliberate action."
"34. The common law imposes an obligation on the person making a defamatory statement on an electronic notice board to take reasonable steps to ensure that it is not read by persons other than the intended recipient. The defendant's actions were the modern day equivalent of a businessperson sending a defamatory letter in an unsealed envelope not marked "private". The fact that Ms Bligh could have altered her Facebook settings to inhibit access to the exchange by her friends did not absolve the defendant from the obligation to take reasonable steps to ensure privacy herself. She was given the opportunity of a private conversation by telephone which she rejected. Unless therefore she asked Ms Bligh to confirm that the exchange would be private she had no right to assume that it would be and is liable for the consequences if, as happened, it was not. "
Sir John Laws:
Lord Justice McFarlane:
DB posts status update on own wall | ? | cant wait to wake up christmas day with my man and his son xxx missing my children xxx |
NS comment on status | 12:16 | Which one of his sons would that be. May be u should be with your own kids |
DB comment | 12:18 | sorry i do not understand your status would you like to phone me I am at home |
NS comment | 12:20 | Not really no |
DB posts status on own wall | ? | nicky you can phone me if you wish x |
NS comment on status | 12.21 | Why would I want to do that? |
DB comment | 12.25 | why ask me as a friend on fb ???? |
NS comment | 12.26 | Because it was very enlightening and confirmed a lot of my worse fears. |
NS comment | 12.28 | But very useful! |
DB comment | 12.28 | oh and what are they |
DB comment | 12.29 | useful for what ? |
NS comment | 12.30 | Ask Terry I learnt from the best! |
NS comment | 12.33 | I hear you have been together 2 years ? If so u might like to ask him who he was in bed with the last time he was arrested, apparently he really liked her but she packed her bags and left. Sensible girl ! |
DB comment | 12.34 | when was this ??? |
NS comment | 12.37 | Ask terry if you are at home I presume you mean his house as you don't have one. Is it only one of his sons there for Christmas, probably as don't think he is too popular with the other mums. |
DB comment | 12.42 | terry and josh are out , does terry ave more than one son then ? |
NS comment | 12.45 | Oh yes he has an older one born when he broke his feet and also Charlie has come to light, he is 9 |
NS comment | 12.45 | God knows if there are more! |
DB comment | 12.46 | oh I didn't no, |
DB comment | 12.48 | where did Charlie come from ?// |
NS comment | 12.49 | Well lying cheating bastard who refuse to wear condoms tend to get caught out occasionally. Wouldn't bring it up last time I accused him of cheating he spent a night in the cells, tried to strangle me. Police don't take too kindly to finding your wife with your hand prints round her neck. But don't worry you will get a nice watch for Christmas! |
DB comment | 12.50 | a watch ??? |
DB comment | 12.52 | there are thing I do not no |
NS comment | 12.52 | Oh yes unless he has already bought you one seems to be his gift of choice. Think its a bit like a badge of ownership, Cartier or even a tag |
DB comment | 12.54 | ??? |
NS comment | 12.54 | Don't accept any sort of vehicle it will be owned by Eros finance, poor Lyn had hers snatched from the carpark at work god only knows how she got home |
NS comment | 12.55 | Cartier and tag are makes of watches |
DB comment | 12.56 | who is lyn |
DB comment | 12.57 | and eros finance ??? |
NS comment | 12.57 | His first wife he was married to her for 27 years |
NS comment | 12.59 | Eros one of his companies god u really haven't done your background research have you! Well ask away |
DB comment | 13.09 | i do not seem to no a lot |
NS comment | 13.10 | It's know and no you don't seem to unfortunately Lyn did not enlighten me she just chose to tell me it wouldn't work |
DB comment | 13.14 | can you enlighten me because i realy didn't know anything about all this ? |
NS comment | 13.15 | What would you like to know? Ask any questions you want |
DB comment | 13.16 | about terry , what he is like / why your marriage didn't work |
NS comment | 13.19 | Our marriage didn't work because we didn't get on we have very different views what a marriage should be. |
NS comment | 13.21 | And I did not want josh growing up in an environment where al he saw was his parents yelling at each other and them being unhappy, I wanted him to grow up understanding that relationships are about love and mutual respect |
NS comment | 13.23 | And I am sure you want your kids to know that too x |
DB comment | 13.23 | i can understand that |
NS comment | 13.24 | That's why I divorced him |
DB comment | 13.26 | and what is terry like as a person ? |
NS comment | 13.27 | In what way? |
DB comment | 13.27 | why did terry get arrested |
NS comment | 13.28 | Clearly I don't like him very much that's why I divorced him ! So my opinion on that is very bias! Which time? |
DB comment | 13.35 | why has he been arrested ??? |
NS comment | 13.38 | Well u know about him trying to strangle me, then he was removed from the house following a number of threats he made and some gun issues I believe and then the police felt he had broken the terms of the non molestation order. |
NS comment | 13.45 | All quite traumatic really |
DB comment | 14.00 | sorry to hear that , so what is it you have against me ??? |
NS comment | 14.17 | Obviously concerned re the stability for josh giving both Terry's and your history. He was very happy living there and I was hopeful he would have a stable home and build a relationship with his dad, who wanted him 50 percent of the time, now that time seems to involve being looked after by his grandmother or you. thats not really what the court had in mind or me! Now it seems he is getting a big step family, that in truth on paper aren't looking good, a little concerned that you abandon your children in France and only have limited access to them yet you have full access to my son and also I don't want him involved in another failed relationship. I am sure as a mum you understand that. |
NS comment | 14.39 | So you see it's not you per say, it's being a concerned mother who loves her son and wants to protect him. Unlike terry I am quite happy for him to have a relationship, just wish he would remember he is a dad first. |