EXPRESS NEWSPAPERS FAILS IN ATTEMPT TO SNOOKER JIMMY WHITE. By Robert Sterling

Transcription

1 EXPRESS NEWSPAPERS FAILS IN ATTEMPT TO SNOOKER JIMMY WHITE By Robert Sterling On 17th June 2012 the Daily Star Sunday published an article about Jimmy White, the well-known professional snooker player, and John Callaghan, a friend and fan of Mr White. The article was in hard copy and online editions and remained online until 17th August The article was headed 'JIMMY'S AIDE IN BETTING PROBE' with a further headline 'Right-hand man pots thousands tipping snooker ace White to LOSE.' The article was described as an exclusive and went on to describe Mr Callaghan as a key aide of Mr White and being at the centre of a probe after making a string of bets on Mr White to lose games. To quote further from the article: 'A Daily Star Sunday investigation can reveal right-hand man and promoter John Callaghan netted more than 5,000 on punts against the 'Whirlwind'. 'Callaghan has placed more than 35 bets on matches involving White in the last year.' 1

2 'Most of the punts went on Londoner White 50 to lose with some 'frame bets' predicting the exact score.' 'In January this year he landed 825 on two bets predicting rookie Sam Baird would beat White 5-1.' Both Mr White and Mr Callaghan brought an action against Express Newspapers, the owner of the Daily Star Sunday. The words quoted (and other words in the article) are alleged to be defamatory of Mr White and Mr Callaghan. The defamatory meaning which Mr White and Mr Callaghan each attributed to the words complained of were ' had or must have conducted himself dishonestly, was and is or must have been corrupt and had been or must have been involved in a gambling scam because Mr Callaghan would only have profited from his betting on [Mr White] if he had had inside information from him.' Express Newspapers, before it served any defence, applied in each action for a determination pursuant to CPR Part 53 Practice Direction para 4.1 that the words complained of were not capable of bearing the meaning attributed to them by Mr White and Mr Callaghan. 2

3 On the hearing in February this year, the parties agreed that the Judge, Tugendhat J, could determine the actual meaning of the words rather than simply give a range of meanings. On the applications both parties relied upon the different levels of possible defamatory meaning as explained in Chase v. News Group Newspapers Limited [2002] EWCA Civ 1772 at para 45: 'The sting of a libel may be capable of meaning that a claimant [level 1] has in fact committed some serious act, such as murder. Alternatively it may be suggested that the words mean that [level 2] there are reasonable grounds to suspect that he/she has committed such an act. A third possibility is that they may mean that [level 3] there are grounds for investigating whether he/she has been responsible for such an act.' Before the Court Mr White and Mr Callaghan argued for level 1 and in the alternative level 2. The newspaper argued that any defamatory meaning of Mr Callaghan was below level 3 and that there was no defamatory meaning at all of Mr White. The Judge decided that the meaning of the words complained of by each of Mr White and Mr Callaghan was that there were reasonable grounds to suspect that Mr Callaghan used insider information communicated to him by Mr White to place winning bets and so reasonable grounds to suspect that both men acted dishonestly to enable Mr Callaghan to place winning bets. 3

4 The Judge also recorded that for the avoidance of doubt it was not in dispute that the World Professional Billiards and Snooker Association issued a statement on 1st August 2012 stating that it could not find any evidence of inappropriate betting activity in relation to statements in the article complained of, or by Mr White, and that no further action would be taken. The case is reported at [2014] EWHC 657. The issue of costs was also in dispute and the outcome is reported at [2014] EWHC 814. The meaning applications did raise interesting procedural issues: (1) It was sensible that the parties should allow the Judge by way of preliminary trial to decide the actual meaning. (2) It is important for a claimant in its pleaded case to pitch the Chase level at the right defamatory level. Otherwise, there can be adverse consequential costs ordered against him. (3) Similarly, while is open to a defendant to argue for any Chase level or that the words are not defamatory, it too is at risk as to costs if it does so unsuccessfully. Overall, having established Chase level 2, Mr White and Mr Callaghan can properly regard the outcome as a success insofar as the Chase level 2 meaning is still seriously defamatory subject to any defence such as justification or qualified privilege. 4

5 Robert Sterling of Zenith Chambers appeared for Jimmy White and John Callaghan. 5