Vardy or Rooney - Wagatha Christie - Whose side are you on and why?

[CurvyBirdy]

The great "who-dunnit"! Whose side are you on and why?

I thought this could be lost for Rooney on a technicality, but I was just reading the Sky News report and it definitely says there are jurors in there with Judge Steyn.

I can’t see a jury warming to RV or believing her story. Could be interesting.

Not really on anyone’s side but I'm pretty sure that Vardy is a deeply unpleasant individual. And thick as a sack of shit. Whoever the court case finds in favour of she’s going to come out of this badly in the court of public opinion.

I have never really had an opinion of Colleen. Apart from wondering why she stays with Wayne after all these infidelities. Yes, the money of course but she’s got 4 kids by him, they’ve been married well over 10 years now, she’d get a massive settlement and I doubt her lifestyle would change at all. Anyhoo, I get the feeling she will come out of this pretty much unscathed in comparison to Vardy. Unless any of the private messages paint her in a worst light.

It's a civil case so the standard of proof is the balance of probabilities the defendant has done x rather than is the jury sure the defendant did x. I think RV is on a hiding to nothing given her evidence so far, but we don't know how she comes across in person.

why on earth would any one care

Team Peter Andre.

poor bloke getting dragged into this

The money of course but she’s got 4 kids by him, they’ve been married well over 10 years now, she’d get a massive settlement and I doubt her lifestyle would change at all.

I’m sure she stays for the kids, not the lifestyle. It’s so that he doesn’t marry some totally inappropriate randomer, who then has access to her kids.

I'm interested in the legal aspect because CR said it came from RV's account. So is that what they are trying to establish? Surely they can't find against CR if she made a statement that was true?

No one knows except her though. Maybe she stays for love. Some women never remarry anyway. At least he’s accompanied his wife to court each day from what I’ve seen. Not sure whether it’s telling or not that Jamie Vardy hasn’t shown up with his wife.

The High Court has already determined that CR’s words in effect amounted to an allegation against RV personally at a previous hearing.

Libel laws are a bit more nuanced than that - that's why you can be done for saying that "rumours are flying around Westminster that John Major is having an affair" even if the statement is 100% true.

There was a preliminary lawsuit over whether CR would have a defence if she just demonstrated that her words were literally true even if it wasn't RV herself who made the leak. It was found that the ordinary people reading her words would have interpreted them to mean that RV personally was the guilty party, so that's what CR has to prove to assert a defence of truth.

Social media is a game changer for this aspect of libel law - if you want to show how the general public interpreted a comment you can just search Twitter or indeed MN on the day of the revelation and find a thousand people saying "that RV, I always knew she was a snake!" and literally no-one saying "actually maybe it was just someone else who had access to RV's Insta".

Sorry that I’m not prh47bridge but I am a lawyer! Part 36 (which contains rules about payment of costs if you don’t beat an offer) will apply. One would hope that Coleen has made a sensible one but there’s just no way of knowing at this stage what damages RV will get, and how this compares to the level of the offer.

the other thing to note is CR has to show the allegation is “substantially true”, so I reckon if she can show it was RV’s agent but RV was involved that might do the trick…

I would’ve expected WhatsApp messages to be available via person B if person A had unwittingly lost their phone to Davy Jones’ Locker. For person B to have suffered not one, but a series of technological mishaps also, is somewhat incredible 🤨

I have a horrible feeling RV may win her case on the legal technicality and be awarded costs plus £1 damages to indicate the extent of loss to her reputation. But, and it’s a huge but, what a hollow victory that would be.

I think the law needs updating with responsibility put in the court of someone who knowingly hands access to their social media to a third party.

Am I right in understanding that the judge ruled that ‘most people’ would believe this is what CR was saying? Because I disagree and thought her words were chosen with ambiguity in mind. It was very much I can’t actually say that, but it certainly came from RV’s access to my private posts and nowhere else.

If a person doesn’t want to be held accountable, then they should ensure they keep their accounts secure, not give others their passwords.

At least I think RV bears the responsibility even if the story sales were actioned by a third party.

I wonder if financial records show a RV benefit, whether that would have implications on a legal judgement?

CR offered to settle so maybe RV will get costs as she didn't need to go to court at all.

I am pinning my hopes on the possibility of the Judge awarding a very low level of damages if RV wins, didn't she award someone £1 damages once? The legal costs will be greater than the damages anyway I imagine!

It's fantastic. Team Rooney all the way. I could change my mind however.

Thanks @Cantanka I knew that was the case re Part 36 offer but just wondered if RV had counter offered but wanted an apology as well as cash compo (no evidence that this was the case) BUT if she didn’t beat CRS cash offer is there any special provision re defamation that would allow RV to have rejected said offer with impunity, in absence of apology? IE is lack of apology a get out from P36 offer to settle in defamation suits?
Also, thinking that anyone suggesting RV lawyers egged her on and advised against settlement to increase their costs has no understanding of the profession obligations between lawyer and client. If a client wants to run the case, the lawyers are obliged to
continue save in very specific circs. Basically, a) technically it’s a runnable case & b) RV has an agenda, beyond this case and her selective memory recall suggests that she’s got selective hearing too. So, not listening, fingers in her ears, La-La-La syndrome?
RV’s problem is that she’s been shown to be a lying liar who lies - any credibility she had has gone up in smoke but no doubt there’s some sleb bottom feeding media that’ll still give her airtime/ print - ker-ching!

If a person doesn’t want to be held accountable, then they should ensure they keep their accounts secure, not give others their passwords

Personally I think social media companies should make clear in their terms that you are responsible for anything posted on your social media account and therefore to exercise caution when giving out your password to third parties. It does seem like the law needs to catch up with technology, although maybe I'm thinking about it too simplistically.

Loving the wagatha christie podcast on bbc sounds its a great round up of the days activities

I have read somewhere that Rooney offered to settle in money terms but refused to make a public apology - presumably that was what tipped Vardy to decline and take it to court. Wonder if she rues that decision now? Must admit I would not have wanted to apologise to someone when they'd leaked stuff about me!

I'm not a legal eagle but it seems as if this pre trial ruling that Rooney's post = accusing Vardy specifically and so she must prove now it was Vardy and no one else who leaked, is the decisive bit that will constrain the verdict. Is there any way back from that, oh legally educated posters? It will be a hollow victory but even so.

I’m not a defamation expert so will stand corrected, but I don’t think that an apology is a remedy available to RV in these proceedings. So when the court looks at whether RV’s judgment is more advantageous than CR’s offer for the purposes of part 36, I don’t think the lack of apology is going to make much difference.

I think if Coleen can show that RV was complicit in leaking the stories, even if it was her agent that actually did it, that may be enough to make the allegation substantially true.

I will also be very interested to know what the court does about the lost evidence, and if inferences are drawn.

Especially as it's a jury not just a judge in there, @Cantanka

I just can't see a jury buying Vardy's 'innocence'

I'm pretty sure it's judge not jury for this trial. Back in the day all libel trials were heard by a jury but that was changed a few years back and they're virtually all judge only now.