Scottish Court of Session Decisions

The pursuer is a Member of Parliament and brings this slander action against the defenders who publish inter alia The Mail on Sunday consequent upon an article published by that newspaper on 1 February 1998. The article reflected an interview given by what was then said to be his estranged wife, to a journalist working for that newspaper. The article reflected a banner headline on the front page, occupying the whole of the front page and the whole of page 3 of the particular edition of the newspaper. The wife was originally called the second defender in the action but has been released. I shall refer to her as Mrs Wray.

Without quoting at this stage in any detail, the substance of the article was that pursuer was alleged to be a wife beater and an abuser, physically assaulting her on a number of occasions during their marriage. He was described inter alia as a bully and a "control freak". The article disclosed this on a number of occasions, when it is said that the pursuer punched his wife and, on at least one occasion, was said to have threatened her with a knife. He was charged with swearing and shouting at her on numerous occasions.

Since the defenders maintained that the allegations were true, they were ordained to lead in the proof, which I heard over four days of evidence.

The case raises crucial issues of credibility, but before determining them it is appropriate that I should record the evidence.

The first witness for the defenders was Catherine Wray, the wife in question. She explained that she first met the pursuer in the late 1970s when he was a local councillor and they commenced their relationship in 1983. They were married in 1985 and separated ten years later. About the time of the marriage the pursuer was elected to Parliament, at that stage for the Provan constituency, although he now sits for the re-created constituency of Baillieston. She described her husband as having a split personality, nice at times and violent at others. The phrase "Jekyll and Hyde" was used. She deponed to a number of incidents involving violence perpetrated upon her by her husband. On one occasion he had punched her in the stomach while she was hanging curtains for no apparent reason. On another occasion he had kicked her and struck her on the face which required her to go to the doctor. While on holiday in France in or about 1987 there was an incident which, created by the fact that she wanted to go home, he became angry with her and punched her in the stomach propelling her across the caravan in which they were staying. She told another person on the trip, which was related to rehabilitation of some drug addicts, namely Mary Reedy, what had happened. He regularly swore at her and shouted and bawled. There were two specific instance involving injuries to her eyes for which she required medical treatment. In about January 1987 she alleged that she had been struck in the eye by him with his fist which required her to go to the doctor. She told him that she had injured herself with a brush handle. In a more serious incident in February 1990 she alleged that the pursuer had entered the matrimonial home screaming and bawling, he alleging that she had not been at home when he was trying to contact her. He began to strike her across the body and head. In the ensuing melee the burglar alarm went off and the police came. After that incident the following day she maintained that she went first to her doctor and then took the emergency department of the Western Infirmary before being admitted to Gartnavel where she spent four days. On her visit to the doctor after that incident in 1990 she maintained that she told him then that in fact in 1987 she had been struck by her husband and not injured by a brush handle. After being released from hospital she did not return home for some time and there was a dispute between the parties as to who affected the reconciliation. They did in fact however resume living together. The incidents however continued. On one occasion he threw two ornaments at her; on another occasion, when she was next door at her neighbour's house, when the pursuer returned home and telephoned her demanding food, she obtained a Chinese meal but when she arrived back at the house with it, she maintained that he kicked it all over her and she went back to her neighbour's house covered in the food in question. There was an incident in Strasbourg when the parties were on a Parliamentary delegation where she was thrown across an hotel room. On another occasion it was maintained that he had thrown her across the room and into a wardrobe. The culminating incident, according to Mrs Wray, involved him threatening her with a knife, which he held at her throat. That incident occurred in April 1995 after which the parties separated.

A number of counter-allegations were put to her by pursuer's counsel. In particular, that she was social loving, frequently out all night and most importantly of all had a serious drink problem. It was alleged that she was interested only in money and obtaining a share of the matrimonial home. She denied all these aspects. In summary, therefore, Mrs Wray's evidence substantially conformed to the allegations in the article both generally and specifically.

She was supported firstly by Miss Anne Hetherington, who was a neighbour, who knew her very well seeing her about three times a week. She accepted that the pursuer was away often, but recognised the marriage was not happy. She maintained that the pursuer was very possessive of his wife, frequently calling her on the telephone. It was rubbish to suggest that she was a drunk. Mrs Wray was scared of him because of his violence. After the separation in September 1990 it was the pursuer who was begging Mrs Wray to return. She corroborated the Chinese meal incident to the extent of confirming that Mrs Wray returned to her house covered in the food. She maintained this was just another incident to which Mrs Wray had become resigned.

She was followed in the witness box by a brother of the pursuer, Mr Francis Wray, who had seen little of his brother over the years and indeed had fallen out with him until the death of their father. Thereafter he saw something of the couple. He maintained there was sparky moments and that his brother could at times fly into tantrums shouting and bawling. On one occasion he had seen him come running from the bedroom describing him as "raging bull". He specifically denied the suggestion that Mrs Wray was a drunk. He had visited her in hospital in London when she had attended for a detached retina when she appeared upset at the state of the marriage. He maintained that he was disgusted with the way his brother had treated his wife. He was not shaken much under cross-examination, particularly in relation to the issue of drink, which he said did not feature to any material extent in Mrs Wray's life. He accepted that his brother had told him that the second eye injury was caused as a result of Mrs Wray striking her head against a piece of furniture while drunk in the bedroom.

He was followed by Susan Fulton, whose husband's parents, named Grant, were next door neighbours to the Wrays while they were living together. She deponed to the incident in February 1990 when she received a phonecall from her mother-in-law to go to their house and take some toiletries to Mrs Wray, who was by then in hospital. She maintained that she had to do this because her father-in-law was in a drunken state and could not drive. She complied, went to the hospital, and saw Mrs Wray there. She said she looked a mess. She had a black and blue eye and damage to her face. She maintained she was told by Mrs Wray in hospital that she "had been beaten up by Jimmy". In response to the suggestion that Mrs Wray was a drunk, she dismissed it completely, laughing it off in the witness box. A further witness, Mrs Nancy Reedy, who was a teacher, deponed to having been in France, she said in 1986, with the drug addicts to which I have already referred, and she thought the marriage was reasonably happy. She maintained that Mrs Wray was very fond of her husband, but she accepted, on one occasions, she had found her upset in the campsite lavatories after some argument, about what she did not know. She said, however, that Mrs Wray had been crying.

The defenders' proof concluded with evidence from two doctors, firstly Professor Dutton, who provided a medical report 7/1, to which he spoke. That report was compiled in 1998 and dealt with the two incidents involving the eyes in 1987 and 1990. The substance of his evidence was that on both occasions Mrs Wray had suffered almost identical eye injuries consistent with having been assaulted. He stated that in 1990 she told him that the original explanation with regard to the brush handle in 1987 was not correct and that both occasions she had been struck by her husband. The Professor maintained that given the nature of the injury, which was to the retina, that penetration of the eye was required and this made it less likely that it was caused by a fall against a blunt object. He thought it likely that the mechanism and agency of the injuries on each occasion were the same and were consistent with a blow with a fist.

The final witness for the defenders was Dr Quin, who was Mrs Wray's general practitioner. He deponed to his own clinical notes that he had seen her in 1987 with trauma to her eye, then again in 1990 when he required her first of all to go to the Western Infirmary and thereafter to Gartnavel. He recollected that when she attended on that occasion she was accompanied but he said not by her husband. In particular, the doctor maintained that he had no record of there being an alcohol problem nor any entry in the notes which would be consistent with that. Although most of his evidence was related to the notes, he did maintain that he had a clear recollection of seeing her in 1990 and that she was complaining of husband assault.

The first witness for the pursuer was the pursuer himself, whose evidence was in marked contrast to that of Mrs Wray and her supporters. He categorically denied many times that he had ever struck her or been violent towards her, that he swore at her or, indeed, that he was of a violent disposition even on a Jekyll and Hyde basis. He maintained that he had been very reluctant to marry her in the first place, that her main interest was money, that she was a socialite constantly going out, having affairs with other men and had a serious drink problem, if not an alcoholic. He maintained that countless times he had removed a knife from her when she had been in a drunken state and indeed on the last incident involving a knife to which Mrs Wray had spoken, the true version was that she had come at him with two knives which he had managed to take off her. That was the last straw he maintained, and he had left thereafter. That was merely one of a number of explanations given by the pursuer in evidence in chief, which had not been put by his counsel to Mrs Wray. He maintained that she frequently embarrassed him in public, particularly in the House of Commons, when being under the influence of drink. She frequently spent time away from home, being out all night. The article in question was a complete fabrication. The interview had been given by Mrs Wray in receipt of payment of the sum of £25,000 approximately, from the defenders. The pursuer specifically denied ever committing any act of violence. He pointed out that having been an amateur boxer the strength of his punch was such that any infliction of such an assault would be bound to cause serious injury. He maintained that with the exception of the two eye incidents throughout the marriage, Mrs Wray had never exhibited signs of having experienced violence. With regard to the first incident he was not in any way involved in it. With regard to the second incident in February 1990 he maintained that he had come home late at night from London and had found Mrs Wray's clothes strewn all over the house and the bedroom. There was a dreadful smell of drink and she was lying in a drunken stupor on the bed. She woke up, jumped up and banged her head against the back of the headboard, before endeavouring to get out of bed, falling and hitting her head against the bedside table. She then struggled towards the patio door into which she collided and thus set off the burglar alarm. This in turn brought the police, but she did not speak to them, having gone upstairs. He maintained that the following day she stayed in bed until nearly 3.00pm and then went to the doctor on her own, he, the pursuer, still being in the house. She came back from the doctor and he took her to Gartnavel. He accepted that once she left the hospital she did not return home but went to the home of a friend, Diana who was not called as a witness. He regarded the marriage as over. He maintained that he had told her by phonecall that the marriage was over and indeed he deposited her clothes in some black bags in the house. She remained away for some six to eight weeks before there was a reconciliation of sorts. He had finally departed in April 1995 after the knife incident, which took place as he described it. The pursuer then went on to describe the affect upon him of the article, which evidence I will recall and deal with when considering the issue of damages.

He was vigorously cross-examined, not least on a number of aspects of his evidence which had not been put to Mrs Wray, but he was not shaken from the fact that the substance of the article was complete fabrication. He was not a violent man, and that the motivation for the article was entirely money consistent with Mrs Wray's interest in that subject throughout the marriage. He maintained that she was regularly drunk and on at least one occasion taunted him by sticking forward her chin and inviting him to strike her on it. He denied any involvement personally in either of the eye injuries and rehearsed in some detail again the evidence I have already recorded as regards the mechanism of the incident which resulted in her going to Gartnavel, to which he maintained he had taken her. He accepted he had not visited her in hospital. Towards the end of cross-examination he averred that he could not count the times that Mrs Wray had attacked him with knives.

The pursuer's evidence was followed by that of Mrs Kathleen Grant, who was the neighbour and mother-in-law of the defenders' witness Mrs Fulton. She accepted that she had known the pursuer and Mrs Wray for some time. She frequently went shopping and dog walking with her, seeing her most days. She did not think the couple were very happy. In fact she thought that he had not wanted to marry her. She felt they were incompatible. She was frequently aggressive and was frequently taunting him, as she confirmed by the incident involving the proffering of the chin so that it could be hit. She confirmed that she regard Mrs Wray an excessive drinker. She became a different person when she drank. She recalled an incident in the Palace of Westminster where she and her husband left their company because of the state of Mrs Wray and her attitude towards the pursuer. She recalled in 1990 Mrs Wray coming to her house with an eye injury, but she maintained that she, Mrs Wray, said she had hit her head on the light stand. She had never seen other sign of violence or injury nor had she entertained any complaints from Mrs Wray that she was being assaulted by her husband. In cross-examination she denied that she had accompanied Mrs Wray to the doctor at the time of the 1990 incident. She did ask her daughter-in-law to take some toiletries to the hospital, but she denied that he husband could not do it because he was drunk. She accepted that the pursuer was unhappy with Mrs Wray's lifestyle both in relation to her drinking and socialising, which she maintained happened frequently.

Her evidence was followed by that of Mr William Perrie, who was a retired councillor and spoke merely to the character of the pursuer. However, he deponed that he was a very friendly, likeable man. He denied any suggestion of a split personality or a violent temperament. He had performed many good works in the community.

His evidence was followed by that of Laura Wray, formerly Walker, who married the pursuer in July 1999 and had had a child by him. She described him as a very even tempered loving man, and could not recognise the person described in the article. He was not prone to violence. She described the events of the evening when the article was to be published and confirmed that upon discovering it the pursuer had gone immediately to the house of Mrs Molloy, who subsequently gave evidence and who was an old friend of the pursuer. In due course, it seemed the purpose behind this expedition was to get Mrs Molloy to reassure the present Mrs Wray as to the untruthfulness of the allegations.

There then followed evidence from the pursuer's children from his first marriage. The daughter Michelle thought the marriage was happy enough to start with, although there were occasional arguments, but she never saw any sign of violence nor any complaints. She maintained that Mrs Wray was quite a difficult person to get on with. She recalled that on one occasion she came to her flat wanting her to telephone her father to say that he had been with her the night before, which was untrue, and she did not comply. She had a drink problem, more often when he was not around. She was a bad housekeeper and she deponed to there being a lot of gin bottles in the house on various occasions.

A son, James, saw them together during the holidays particularly and deponed to the relationship gradually getting worse. He never saw his father being violent, although there were arguments. Her drinking was more than just social drinking and there were frequent arguments and disturbances in the house. He recalled the incident in February 1990. He heard voices, he being in his room upstairs. He went downstairs where the argument was still going on, although he did not see what had happened in the bedroom. He accepted his father had taken his step-mother upstairs after the incident when the burglar alarm was ringing. This type of incident, he maintained, happened very frequently, including the setting off of the burglar alarm. Nearly all this was when she was under the influence of drink. However he denied any suggestion that his father had been violent at any time towards his step-mother or had injured her.

The final witness was Catherine Molloy, to which I have already made reference. She had known the pursuer for twenty five years and got to know Mrs Wray to the extent that she was the best maid at their wedding. She recollected that there was some trouble at the wedding in as much as he realised that the pursuer did not in fact want to marry her. She maintained it was never a happy marriage. Mrs Wray did not provide the home life that the pursuer wanted. She was frequently on the phone and going out with friends. She liked dressing up and going out, which annoyed the pursuer. She never saw any signs of violence nor any complaints thereanent. Mrs Wray drank a great deal. Indeed she believed she had a problem. The witness recalled going on one expedition to a night-club in Glasgow where Mrs Wray kept disappearing to the bar and finally she and her companions lost her, finding her in the lavatory where she was very drunk. She recalled another incident at the St Enoch Drug Centre where, she, Mrs Molloy had worked. It appeared that the pursuer had attended the Centre complaining that Mrs Wray had not been in all night. Mrs Wray was present. He told her not to come back, maintaining that the marriage was over because he had "caught her". She recalled the occasion when the pursuer had come to her house, consequent upon or at the time of the publication of the article.

In cross-examination she denied that the pursuer was prone to swearing. She had no evidence to suggest that there had been any physical violence but she had seen the pursuer being embarrassed on many occasions by the conduct of Mrs Wray, particularly when she was drunk. She had not been aware that Mrs Wray had gone to Gartnavel at the time, but she knew that she had suffered some form of injury having been told that she had fallen down once again. She reiterated that the description of the man identified in the newspaper article did not conform to, on any view, her knowledge of the pursuer's character.

Against that background I turn now to deal with the submissions of counsel.

Mr Mitchell, Q.C., opened his submissions on behalf of the defenders by accepting that the article in question, if false, was defamatory. However in presenting the plea of veritas he submitted that at common law the substantial truth of the allegations must be proved but not every word. The "sting" had to be identified and shown to be true. He referred to Gatley on Libel and Slander and also made reference to the Defamation Act 1952, section 5. He accepted that the substance of the article described the pursuer as a violent, domineering bully who had committed assaults, and this is what had to be established as a matter of fact. The standard of proof, he submitted, was a balance of probabilities (Andrew v Penny 1964 S.L.T. Notes 24; B v Kennedy 1987 S.C. 247). Against that standard he also accepted that the weight of evidence mattered having regard to the gravity of the offences. On the other hand, recognition had to be made that much of what was alleged to have taken place was not likely to be witnessed (see B v Kennedy at p.251). The issue of standard of proof was also addressed in Mullen v Anderson 1993 S.L.T. 835 when a criminal offence, as here, was being alleged to have been committed, in a civil action.

He then turned to the evidence and submitted that the truth of the main allegations was clearly established, supported by independent corroborated evidence. He accepted that there was a stark contrast in the evidence with the pursuer's side of the issue being that he behaved impeccably, never assaulted nor swore at his wife nor even threatened nor bullied her, representing Mrs Wray as a fabricator and liar who had exercised violence against the pursuer many times, particularly when drunk, her motivation in this case being chequebook journalism to the tune of £25,000. In fact, he submitted, the position was entirely the opposite. He accepted that while at times in the witness box Mrs Wray had appeared hesitant and reticent, she had, he submitted, maintained that her husband had a Jekyll and Hyde split personality, was obsessive about her, frequently telephoning her, and that the assaults that were averred had taken place. He founded particularly on the two eye assaults, the first one in 1987 and the latter one in 1990. The allegations made by Mrs Wray were supported by the pursuer's brother, who he submitted was an important supporting witness, firstly, because he was the pursuer's brother and, secondly, because he had given his evidence in a balanced way, particular deponing at one point to having seen the pursuer behave like a "raging bull" towards his wife and on another occasion had been involved an argument with her, which had caused him to be disgusted with the way his brother treated her.

However, the main strength of his position was based upon the eye assaults supported by the medical evidence of Professor Dutton and Dr Quin. In the former's report, both incidents were catalogued and in evidence he maintained that the Professor had indicated that the mechanism of each incident was the same and that while a false explanation had been given on the first occasion, no attempt had been made to disguise the fact she had been assaulted on the second. Penetration of the eye with some object was necessary in order to achieve the actual injury on both occasions. The records of the general practitioner confirmed her attendance on each occasion. He maintained that the pursuer's version of the latter eye incident was wholly incredible, not only as to how it had happened, but also in relation to the way and how Mrs Wray finished up in Gartnavel Hospital, he, the pursuer, having maintained that he took her there, which was denied by Mrs Wray. He reminded me that Mrs Fulton had been requested to take some toiletries to the hospital the next day. The supporting witnesses, particularly Miss Hetherington, so far as her evidence went, was important in relation to the incident involving the Chinese food and her general view of how Mrs Wray seemed to be as the marriage progressed. There was some support in the medical records for an incident involving Mrs Wray's throat, which further provided independent corroboration. He was dismissive of the evidence given by the now Mrs Wray and the pursuer's children as being of little value. He maintained that Mrs Wray had accepted that she was inclined to take a drink from time to time, but that she was not a drunkard, and this Mr Mitchell submitted was not far from the evidence given by the children. As far as Catherine Molloy was concerned, her evidence was exaggerated in general, having given regard to the fact of the length of time she had known the pursuer. It was therefore, he submitted, established upon the evidence, a clear matrimonial pattern of violence which was substantially true, supported, so far as it went, by the medical evidence. It was thus made out against a balance of probabilities that the contents of the article were substantially true and the plea of veritas should be sustained.

He was reserved his position on damages until he heard Miss Dorrian's submission in that respect.

Miss Dorrian opened by accepting, substantially, the law as stated by her opponent, save she submitted that the question of onus was important, it being incumbent upon the defenders to prove the truth of the allegations. If they did not achieve that, that would be sufficient for the pursuer to succeed, because the truth of the allegation would stand unestablished and, that being so, it being accepted that prima facie the article is defamatory, that was enough. Thus she submitted, whatever view I took of the pursuer's evidence, if I did not accept that of Mrs Wray and her supporting witnesses, the pursuer's case must succeed. She accepted that what had to be dealt with was the sting contained in the article which she went through in some detail pointing or highlighting, various aspects of it which led to the conclusions complained of by the pursuer. She accepted that this was the relevant standard of proof, under reference to Norrie on Defamation at p.132.

Turning to the evidence she immediately accepted the obvious conflicts, but she maintained that properly examined there was very little, if any, support for Mrs Wray's position which was open to question in many respects, and if that questioning was supportable, the defenders' case failed. There were a number of aspects in relation to Mrs Wray's credibility upon which she founded.

In the first place, in relation to the 1987 incident, there was the account of having been struck by a brush and there was no contemporary evidence of complaints to anybody else. She noted in passing that Mrs Wray maintained that she had had a back-hand slap, while the Record made a reference to a punch. Thus, in itself, there was no support for this allegation. With regard to the 1990 incident, all the evidence again came from Mrs Wray, although she undoubtedly had an injury. At the time there was an issue of divorce, and Mrs Wray might have reason therefore for making an allegation against her husband. As regards how Mrs Wray got to Gartnavel, the pursuer's recollection was simply wrong.

Again in relation to the supporting incidents they all came from Mrs Wray, with little or no corroboration apart from Miss Hetherington accepting that on one occasion she saw her covered in Chinese food and the presence of Mrs Molloy at the incident at St Enoch's Drug Centre. The evidence of Miss Reedy, as far as the French expedition was concerned, was worthless. The medical notes were not sufficient to provide any form of real corroboration. If one stood back from the evidence and looked at it objectively, over the whole ten year period there was no real evidence, apart from the two specific incidents, of any signs of violence having been perpetrated on Mrs Wray by the pursuer nor any evidence of complaints to that effect to anybody. There were obvious issues as to who left whom in 1990, but she pointed out that Mrs Wray stated that he had left her rather than she leaving him, which again was hardly consistent, it was submitted, with being exposed to prolonged matrimonial violence. On the other hand, the pattern painted by the pursuer was supported by his own witnesses, was completely negative of the allegations in the article. Matters came to a head when the evidence relating to drinking was in general and the Savoy Club expedition, in particular, were examined. There was no way that that could be reconciled with Mrs Wray's position and it was therefore, she submitted, clearly established that Mrs Wray took drink on many occasions and became aggressive and belligerent towards her husband on most of them. If this is so, the pursuer's version of what happened in the 1990 eye incident should be accepted. As regards the final knife incident, the Record did mention two knives which the pursuer had maintained she had attacked him with, and he had disarmed her. She submitted, finally, that Mrs Wray should be regarded as highly manipulative. She would lie as to where she had been and this was supported by the statement by the daughter that she had in fact been asked to lie on her behalf. The whole involvement with the journalist, James Irvine, which lead to the article being published, was highly significant in the context of an impending divorce. On any view of the matter, the defence was not made out. A fortiori the pursuer should be believed, in which case his action was bound to succeed.

She then turned to the question of damages and pointed to the evidence that had been led by the pursuer under reference to a volume of various newspaper cuttings which supported his political career. She reminded me of the evidence that he himself had given as to how upset and indeed devastated he was by the article, attacking his personal integrity. Although he was recovering, some irreparable damage may well have been done. Little turned on the authority but she did refer to Baigent & Others v BBC 1999 S.C.L.R. 787 and John v MGN Limited 1996 EMLR 229. At the end of the day she accepted it was essentially a jury question for me, but she submitted that the figures awarded in the BBC case approximately represented half what should be awarded to her client. She therefore submitted the appropriate figure to be £120,000.

Mr Mitchell's response was that that sum was wildly off the mark. He accepted it was a jury question and if necessary proposed an award of £20,000.

In seeking to resolve this matter I have four preliminary observations.

The first is that while it is recognised on all sides there exists a stark contrast between the positions effectively of the two real parties, which is wholly irreconcilable. The substance of the evidence for the defenders effectively categorises the pursuer as a monster, while the evidence on his behalf, including that of his own, almost categorises as him as a saint. This leads me to the inevitable conclusion that neither is probably the case. Since in cases like this, when emotions run high, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that there may be a deal of exaggeration whether positive or negative on both sides.

However, be that as it may, I have secondly to observe that reading the article fairly, the conclusion cannot be avoided that its "sting" categorises the pursuer as a violent bully, prone to exercising violence upon his wife on numerous occasions, which takes it far beyond simply a reference to the specific incidents which are in themselves, allegations of criminal conduct. The generalisations in the article, such as a reference to "control freak" and "split personality", require, in my opinion, the defenders to face up to the fact, which Mr Mitchell did not serious dispute, that these are very serious allegations indeed, and therefore require strong evidence in support of their truthfulness, if that is to be established. I should emphasise that by using the phrase "strong evidence" I am accepting at once that the standard is balance of probabilities, but the weight necessary to tip that balance in favour of the defenders, has to be considerable.

Thirdly, I would observe that I consider there is force in the submission by Miss Dorrian that if I am unable to be satisfied with the credibility or reliability of the evidence of Mrs Wray, whatever view I took of the pursuer's evidence, the defenders would fail because the onus remains with them and the pursuer need prove nothing. This is important because, although this is a civil action, since criminality is alleged, it seems to me that, albeit on a balance of probabilities standard, the defenders are in my view having to overcome a presumption of innocence having made the charges in the article.

Finally, I would simply observe that I was surprised, and so expressed in open court, that the journalist who wrote the article was not proffered in evidence and I say that because while there are some direct quotations of Mrs Wray in the article, there is considerable gloss put on the whole picture by the journalist, both as a matter of background and her description of the physical appearance and demeanour of Mrs Wray. While obviously the question of credibility is for me, I would have found it helpful to have been able to form a view as to the reliability of the reporting of the particular journalist, which I am sure would have been scrutinised under cross-examination. Beyond that I take the matter no further, save to venture the view that in a case of this sort if the journalist obtained a by-line under an "exclusive" head, she should, in my opinion, be prepared to defend it, particularly where the newspaper paid a substantial sum of money for the story.

I therefore propose to commence by making a detailed study of the evidence of Mrs Wray in order to try and reach a position on her credibility and reliability.

In the witness box her demeanour was, as was submitted, hesitant and reticent, which is not surprising and at times she became distressed. However she did give her evidence in a calm way, and despite being well cross-examined made very few concessions. However, in that respect, I find that important, particularly when it comes to the issue of drink, which is one of the keys that I propose to use to unlock the credibility problem in this case.

The parties' respective positions on the issue of drink, despite Mr Mitchell's valiant efforts to reconcile them, are irreconcilable. The concessions, such as they were, made by Mrs Wray in this respect got nowhere near the level of accusation that was being presented by the witnesses on the pursuer's side, including himself, Mrs Grant and Mrs Molloy. The pursuer's children were perhaps less forceful in this respect as to their views on the state of the marriage generally. However I consider there was too much of a pattern in the evidence presented by and on behalf of the pursuer, to find the limited concessions made by Mrs Wray in the witness box in this respect credible. I hold it proved that if not an alcoholic, she certainly had a drink propensity and I therefore see no reason to doubt that she, as a number of witnesses said, when taking drink could become belligerent. I see no reason to doubt Mrs Grant's evidence about the incident in London at Westminster. I find the evidence relating to the expedition to the Savoy Club highly illuminating. In relation to the 1990 eye incident, which if Mrs Wray is to be accepted, the pursuer's version is completely fabricated, he maintained that the whole problem arose because Mrs Wray was drunk. That was all he needed to provide as an explanation and yet his description of finding the clothes all over the house, which caused him to become angry, entirely fits with him waking her up and her in an immediate reaction having taken some drink, inflicting the injury upon herself, albeit the mechanism remained somewhat obscure. The pursuer need not have so elaborated his position, unless it was true. I find it extraordinary that if Mrs Wray had been assaulted by her husband, the police, having arrived by reason of the burglar alarm going off, she did not make some attempt to point that out to them. By this stage of the marriage on her account of it, the need to protect him should have evaporated. Thus her account of this incident is suspect. I am prepared to accept that the pursuer is mistaken on the question that he took her to the hospital, but it does seem to me significant that it was well into the afternoon the following day before she took herself to obtain medical help and that, in itself, might suggest that she was recovering from a hangover. I accept also, however, that she might not have appreciated immediately the seriousness of the injury. That incident has also to be looked at in the context of divorce discussions at that time, which gives her every motive to maintain that her husband had hit her.

In these circumstances I hold that Mrs Wray's evidence does not reflect the real position as far as her drinking problems were concerned, and if that is so, it opens the door to the acceptance of the general tenor of the evidence given by the pursuer and his witnesses of the long running drinking problem during the currency of the marriage, which would also lend credence to the fact that she was out socially to a considerable extent, contrary to his wishes, which may again have led him to be over-possessive and at times irritable and even angry. That, however, does not turn a man in itself into a violent wife beater.

Moving on therefore, I look for the evidence of wife beating. If I am dismissing, as I am, the 1990 incident, not much more credence can be given to the 1987 incident, as far as the cause of the accident as between the pursuer and a brush handle explanation. At best, the matter seems to me to be neutral, and Mrs Wray might well again have had a reason for changing the story in 1990 because of the divorce discussion. The punching incident involving the curtains strikes me as extraordinary in the absence of any explanation as to why it should happen, and I also have to accept that the pursuer is a powerfully built man and if he actually is punching his then wife, who is of slight build, some injury would be certain to occur. I was also impressed, in this respect, by the small point made by Miss Dorrian that Mrs Wray could not remember whether this incident was before or after the loss of her child which happened by miscarriage, something which I accept a woman would be unlikely to forget if being assaulted in the abdomen. I attach little significance to the incident in France which may just have been a domestic argument. That Mrs Wray was upset is probably because of the surrounding circumstances of the nature of the holiday and the people who were on it who were drug addicts, attempting to rehabilitate themselves. The Chinese food incident causes me some concern because the alternative version, which the pursuer spoke to, namely that he had the food thrown at him by her, was not put to him in the witness box in cross-examination, as were a number of other aspects of his evidence in chief. However, be that as it may, if I am correct in the view of the pattern of the marriage that I forming, and it is true that he lost his temper, that does not in itself castigate him as a violent wife beater and bully. In this respect, I am returning to the point upon which I opened as to the mountain that the defenders' have to climb to rebut the main "sting" of this article.

As Mr Mitchell rightly concentrated upon, the medical evidence obviously gives some prima facie support for Mrs Wray but, in my opinion, it is not enough. The high point, perhaps, is the evidence of Professor Dutton that a mere fall or bang against furniture would not cause the eye injury that occurred in 1990. But that does not seem to me sufficiently powerful if there are other factors pointing to, or supporting, that position. The GP records, in my opinion, form little or no support save in particular context to which I have already made reference namely whether Mrs Wray might have a motive for the allegations she made. Much more importantly, I agree with Miss Dorrian that practically all these allegations stem from Mrs Wray and stand substantially uncorroborated. The evidence of the pursuer's brother, which was much founded upon by Mr Mitchell, is fairly limited. The "raging bull" incident I find slightly difficult to comprehend, but again, even if I accept the witness' evidence in that respect, it might do no more than suggest that the pursuer has a temper and I would be very surprised if he has not, which, if goaded, will cause some reaction. Again, that does not seem to me to turn him into a violent wife beater over a long period of time, and thus I return to the "sting" in the article.

The position in the medical records is to my mind highly significant, in as much that I accept Miss Dorrian's submission that it is almost incredible that over a period of ten years, when I heard evidence from a number of people who knew this couple well, including people regularly seeing Mrs Wray, such as Ann Hetherington and, at various times, Mrs Molloy, none of them could depone to any complaints or signs of violence. I simply cannot accept that the nature of the character depicted in the article of a long chain of violent conduct, albeit against some limited specific instances, would not have led either to the victim complaining to her close friends, or visits to the doctor, or at least signs of injury or discomfort calling for some explanation. The absence of any such evidence to my mind calls for an explanation before me to justify it, and without such justification again, I did not find the weight of the evidence allegedly supporting the truth of the article to be sufficient to support it.

In this respect I do not leave out of account the evidence of Mrs Molloy, which impressed me. She seemed to me to be a balanced woman doing her best to be fair to both parties, but her evidence certainly did not favour Mrs Wray in her specific allegation.

It is not without significance that as soon as the pursuer was appraised on the Saturday night of what the newspaper was about to do on the Sunday in question, when he was in the presence of his now wife, the pursuer went straight to Mrs Molloy to elicit her support in a general denial not, I think, significantly to the world but to his present wife as to the truthfulness of the allegations, or lack of it. An attempt was made to suggest that that was the act of a guilty man looking for cover. I take the opposite view. It was that of an innocent man looking for protection.

With all respect to the now Mrs Wray, her evidence added little, except that a man of the apparent brutal characteristics of the article, seems to have been remarkably successful in hiding those deficiencies from his present wife, who he has known for a number of years and I see no reason to doubt her credibility or reliability. Nor do I have any doubts in general terms of the reliability of the evidence given by the children, generally supportive of their father. Indeed it was significant that the son spoke of many noisy, if not violent, incidents caused or related to the drinking habits of Mrs Wray, while in a very significant piece of evidence the daughter talked about finding a number of gin bottles in the house on a number of occasions.

This is not to say that there are not some problems in relation to the evidence of the pursuer and the way he gave it. I have enumerated a number of pieces of his evidence given in chief, which were not put to Mrs Wray in cross-examination,. That does not reflect on the competence of his counsel but rather on his credibility. With regard to the two knives, however, I was reminded that the matter was on Record as such which is significant. At times in the witness box he was rambling, at other times he was obviously under serious emotional pressure, which is not surprising for a man in his position, both publicly and in the witness box, and therefore both. However I was impressed by the vehemence of his general denials of the basic allegations made against him, which were emphatic, probably exaggerated, but impressive for that reason. In my experience a burning sense of injustice can create exaggerated claims of defence, which do not necessarily undermine their credibility. At the end of the day it is my firm view that Mr Wray is an honest man who felt deeply wronged. I am sure that some of his assertions both positive and negative in the witness box were exaggerated. However I am satisfied that the substance of them are true in respect of his denial of the string in the article, and that the marriage become estranged because of his wife's conduct through socialising or drink, or both, which, is perhaps in a slightly old fashioned way, he was not prepared to tolerate.

Finally, the matter is compounded by the way in which the article became into being. While it is not entirely clear how Mrs Wray was introduced to Mr Irvine who gave no evidence but was the "cheque book" agent, legitimately about his business whatever right-minded citizens think about it, the solicitor acting for Mrs Wray must have at least connived at her providing a paid story for a newspaper in the middle of delicate and rapidly deteriorating divorce negotiations. This in my opinion was very bad advice. Mrs Wray maintained that she had to sell the story to bridge the gap between the money she needed and the offer that was now on the table for her as far as the divorce was concerned, but I do not find that convincing. It seems to me impossible to disassociate the divorce discussions from the sudden emergence through a paid interview in a national Sunday newspaper with a circulation of millions, since I was told that this was not a Scottish edition, and this must least raise a question mark as to the motive behind the whole exercise. I would wish to emphasise that I am not deciding this case on that basis, but having found this case extremely difficult, I find it a comforting aspect in respect of the conclusions I have reached.

In these circumstances, and for these reasons, the defenders have failed to satisfy me with sufficient evidence that I can accept that the very grave allegations in this article are true. That being so, the plea of veritas fails and the pursuer is entitled to damages.

Turning to the question of damages, I find no assistance from authority and do not intend to refer to it.

The issue is a jury one and relates only to solatium. However, as I have said on a number of occasions now, the allegations were very grave. The pursuer has a high profile, at least locally and as a Westminster MP nationally when it comes to the attention of national newspapers. The dossier that was produced to me reveals a long and dedicated career in the public sector, initially locally and then nationally. In this day and age when not every Member of the Westminster Parliament has been shown to have clean hands with regard to public life and his private life, the type of allegation in this article must reflect very seriously on the political position of a MP who is representing his constituency and may seek re-election. Privately, the impact of this article must have been devastating in the short term, and very stressful in the long term, even if the effects are now diminishing.

By way of general observation, I do not find it helpful to make any comparison with the award I am making to those that are given to people suffering personal injuries. Psychological and emotional damages as a reaction to an untruthful allegation of serious gravity must be treated on an equal plain with the impact of serious physical injury. That, however, in the case of persons in public life, that has to be compensated by the fact that they require to have thick skins, although not necessarily in relation to untruthful allegations about their domestic life.

At the end of the day, my estimate of damages must be on a wholly broad-brush basis and almost instinctive. The sum in question will be £60,000

The defenders' pleas-in-law will in due course be repelled and that of the pursuer sustained.

In the meantime the case will be put out By Order on the question of interest.