A High Court judge has ruled on the meaning of the social media post at the heart of former Tory MP Andrew Bridgen’s libel case against Matt Hancock MP.
Mrs Justice Collins Rice was asked earlier this month to decide several preliminary issues in the case, including whether Hancock’s post on X (formerly Twitter) was a statement of fact or opinion.
Bridgen was suspended by the party on 11 January 2023 over a “disgraceful” tweet which appeared to say the delay in releasing safety data on Covid-19 vaccines was the worst crime since the Holocaust.
That tweet was widely condemned and has since been deleted by him.
On the same day, Hancock, who had the Tory whip removed for his reality TV appearance, took to X to tweet his question at Prime Minister questions.
Hancock posted: “The disgusting and dangerous antisemitic, anti-vax, anti-scientific conspiracy theories spouted by a sitting MP this morning are unacceptable and have absolutely no place in our society.”
Bridgen took to the social media platform later, calling on Hancock to “apologise publicly for calling me an antisemite and racist, or he will be contacted by my legal team”.
He went on to file a libel and slander lawsuit against Hancock last May over that post.
Hancock is not running for re-election at the July General Election, while Bridgen is running as an independent candidate for North West Leicestershire. Bridgen quit the Reform UK party back in December over a “difference in direction of the party”.
The parties went to an application hearing in March as Hancock’s legal party applied to the court to strike out this libel claim. At this hearing, the court heard Hancock’s defence, which stated that the post had not named Bridgen.
In late March, it was reported that the court ordered Bridgen to pay £44,300 in legal fees after Mrs Justice Steyn struck out certain parts of his case, but she stopped at dismissing the whole claim.
The parties were back in court earlier this month as Mrs Justice Collins Rice was tasked to “determine the single natural and ordinary meaning of the words complained of, which is the meaning that the hypothetical reasonable reader would understand the words bear”.
The preliminary hearing is an important determination for libel proceedings as it establishes what can be used at a full liability trial.
Yesterday, the judge handed down her ruling that the single natural and ordinary meaning of the publication complained of is as follows: “An unnamed MP had said something that morning related to vaccination which was baseless, unscientific, dangerous and offensive, including because its character was antisemitic.”
She noted that ” from an” up to “vaccination” is an assertion of fact, while ” from which” up to “antisemitic” is an expression of opinion.
She noted in her conclusion that a reader would understand without difficulty that the opportunity of this recent event was being taken to enable Hancock to distance himself (and the Government) from the sort of views he condemns in it: to position himself, in other words, as someone opposed to conspiracy theories, in favour of vaccination, pro-science and intolerant of antisemitism.
“It is as much about Mr Hancock as it is about Mr Bridgen, if not more so.”
She noted that Bridgen took a particular exception to the use of ‘anti-semitic’ in the post.
Her ruling was that she was “satisfied the ordinary reasonable reader would not have understood this tweet in the terms Mr Bridgen most fears.”
“I am satisfied they would readily have understood it to be essentially an expression of Mr Hancock’s opinions, and, as regards the epithet ‘anti-semitic’ along with all the other epithets, to be referable to the MP’s mode of expression rather than the MP’s character or convictions” she added.
The PA news agency reported that Hancock is “delighted” by the judgment.
Speaking to PA after the ruling, Bridgen said: “I am delighted that the case is moving forward and that the judge has acknowledged that accusing someone of spouting antisemitism is extremely grave and damaging.
“I look forward at long last to Mr Hancock putting in a defence, which he has not done,” he added,