The Vardy/Rooney case, does the judge just mull it over for a bit & then decide? Like a one-man jury?

[Mangojuic]

I'm not familiar with this type of case. Does the judge chat to other colleagues before she makes her decision? Or does she have to stay on her own & decide? Does she have to justify her decision or only announce it? Is there such a thing as a split decision or is it always black & white? Many thanks

l was wondering the same , out of curiosity whose side are you on ?, if any obviously . l think RV comes out of it really badly, always seems have a convenient excuse for everything she's accused of. Exh made her do it, agent's phone was dropped in ocean, asking for money for a story was only a joke, she was talking about somebody else etc etc . l think CR comes across much better except the bit where she publicly shamed RV in her tweet which the judge seemed to frown upon. But she says she did challenge her privately beforehand to no avail so l don't know.
What l don't get is CR only ever said it was RVs account the leaks were coming from , which presumably can be proved or disproved, she never accused her directly which is what she is taking her to court for.

Since the Defamation Act 2013 libel trials will predominantly be in front of a judge rather than a jury - a jury will only be brought in if a court orders otherwise.

One hasnt since 2014!

There will be (as in any judge led case) a judgement setting out the decision and the law in which it is based upon.

It doesnt matter whose side you are on it depends as to whether Colleen Rooney can prove that it came from Rebekah Vardy

There is only one judge though so how can there be a split decision

Only just spotted this thread. Fundamentally, yes, the judge will decide. She will read all the evidence in the bundle, ponder the evidence given in court and come to a decision. She will not consult anyone else as none of her colleagues will have read the bundle or heard the witnesses. She is solely responsible for her decision.

As previous posters have said, the judge will issue a full judgement setting out the reasons behind her decision. This is important so that, if the loser wishes to appeal, the Court of Appeal can see that the judge has considered the case properly.

And, as the judge is the sole decision maker, there cannot be a split decision, nor can she refuse to decide the case. Even if she is uncertain, she must make a clear decision as to whether Rooney libelled Vardy. She cannot dodge that.

Judge will decide. Even though it seemed unwinnable (Judge decreeing that even though CR had said it came from RV's account most would assume therefore it came from RV, which would be hard to prove 100%) the barristers have done well in showing RV has form for gossip/spilling and does not know what the word leak means!
Read entertaining long account here this morning - very well written by Hadley Freeman - I know whose side I am on

www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2022/may/28/wagatha-christie-vardy-v-rooney-celebrity-trial

She has clerk who can assist with legal research and past cases.

I think vardy will win. Unfair as it seems.

The comment was defamatory and it's already been decided that it was about vardy and not her account. Rooney therefore needs to prove that it is true which I am not sure has been done on balance of probabilities (and I am not sure if"she allowed others to do it"!counts)

Then judgement could be for £1 and no costs paid.

But they may say it doesn't lower her reputation in eyes of most people. However I don't think it's retrospective. Being accused of this would make people think worse of you, even if we now, due to the case think badly of her anyway.

So tough one to call. I think any win would only be token damages.

Yes, "she allowed others to do it" counts.

The question is if Vardy was responsible for passing information to the press. Rooney did not need to show Vardy personally passed the information. It seems Vardy has tried to throw her agent, Watt, under the bus, claiming that she was the one who leaked. That only works if Vardy was unaware of Watt's actions. If Vardy knew Watt was leaking to the press, Rooney should win.

I do not understand why Watt is not being done for destroying evidence - is that not perverting the course of justice? Similarly, able to make a statement but claiming too poorly to back it up in court?
If we are looking at balance of probability, how likely is it that phones get dropped in the ocean, passwords are conveniently forgotten and accounts are claimed to be hacked...To lose one parent may be regarded as a misfortune; to lose both looks like carelessness

The truth is rarely pure and never simple

Imagine if you were the judge and this was your job right now!

It's worth remembering that this is just the semi final, the winner has to face off against the winner of the Heard-Depp trial.

Not the question know but how can Vardy claim her reputation has been damaged? Lots of people already knew she was a trouble maker, it’s only because she took it to court that now the whole world knows.

Watt will suffer the rightful consequences of her treacherous behaviour. No one will want to be associated with her.

It's not impossible that there could be repercussions for the missing evidence, if it were shown that RV had caused it to be destroyed and then lied about it. Jeffrey Archer and Jonathan Aitken were both imprisoned for perjury in their successful libel cases. But it would require some solid evidence that that's what had happened, or perhaps a whistle-blower.

This is not a criminal case. A charge of perverting the course of justice would not be appropriate. Perjury charges are possible, although that would be rare in a civil case. It is very unlikely that Vardy or Watt would face a charge of perjury if Vardy loses.

The judge can draw inferences from the apparent destruction of evidence. If the judge concludes that this was not, as Vardy claims, a series of unfortunate accidents, the judge can infer that the missing evidence would have helped Rooney. Similarly, the judge is likely to give Watt's witness statement(s) less weight since she was not available for cross examination.

To add to my last post, whilst it may be reasonable to conclude that, on the balance of probabilities, Vardy is lying about the alleged accidental destruction of evidence, that would not be enough to convict either her or Watt of perjury. The prosecution would have to show beyond reasonable doubt that the evidence was deliberately destroyed.

No, not like a one man jury... like a judge.

I suspect the Judge might want to make a case or example against famous people outing other famous people for perceived misdemeanors, The consequence of others doing Coleen's style of sting, could be horrendous trolling and physical threats.....it could even result in somebody defending their pin-up by harassing the offending celebrity in person.

The Judge will want to stamp down on this sort of high-profile feuding. A parallel would be vigilantes. The courts may have sympathy for the wronged one, but they cannot condone the retributive action itself.

I think the award of minimal damages and a few carefully chosen put-downs will underline that the Judge isn't sympathetic to RV.

Is the judge's job to make examples? I would have expected that she must stick to the law alone regardless of possible consequences of her judgement.

Love that Guardian article - 'like Icarus, Vardy flew too close to the sun'

IcedOatLatte.

There is, after all, scope for the judge to interpret their task. In itself, the legal notion of ' precedent' denotes that you are comparing two different cases and circumstances and finding common principles. To do this is not a precise science.

From what I understand about this Vardy'/Rooney case, the judge will have to evaluate two things: 1) what the reputation of Vardy' was before: whether it has always been known that she is indiscreet and doesn't respect privacy. 2) the degree to which she suffered as a result of Rooney's post. It seems to me both of these will be open to interpretation.

Then there is whether she did leak stories to the press. After the North Sea fiasco, and the sudden change of tack to blaming the agent (CW), I have thought that, yes, RV probably did leak stuff, because it's too unbelievable that text threads were lost accidentally. I have the feeling that that is beyond doubt, in most people's minds.

If Vardy was responsible for the leaks, Rooney wins. There would be no damages payable as Rooney isn't suing Vardy. So no, the judge won't make an example of Rooney.

prh47bridge.

I know this is a different type of court case to criminal ones, but how does it work that such an important witness - CW - can't be in court on medical grounds, because it's established, isn't it, that the leaker is either RV or CW? I'm thinking this because surely RV would only say that it might have been her agent leaking, if she realised that the leaked information was found (?) proved (?) to be what Rooney posted only to her own social media account. I can't think RV would throw her agent under a bus if it could have been Wayne's sister or one of Coleen's team. In this sort of case, it would appear that CW can't be compelled to, at least, provide a signed statement to say whether or not it was herself.

@Diverseopinions In this case there is a report from a forensic psychiatrist who examined Watt and concluded that she is not fit to give oral evidence. The courts will never force a witness to give evidence in the face of medical opinion that they are not fit to do so. As I understand it, she has provided a witness statement which has been described as lengthy. However, the fact she cannot be cross examined on it means the judge will give that less weight. Indeed, she may accept the argument by Rooney's lawyers that Watt's inability to give oral evidence stems from a knowledge that her evidence is untrue and being scared about being tested on it.

It is also worth noting that, if neither side calls a particular witness to give evidence, they will not give evidence no matter how important their evidence may appear to be. The judge will not force either side to call a particular witness. Once Vardy had decided not to call Watt, even if Rooney had wanted to call her (which I doubt) and was not too late for her to do so, the courts would not have forced Watt to give evidence due to the psychiatrist's report.

prh47bridge.

Thanks for the explanation.

@PortiaFimbriata The libel case pursued by Jonathan Aitken was not ‘successful’ for him (the case collapsed).

@Mangojuic An example of a Mrs Justice Steyn Judgement can be read by referring to Vardy v Rooney (2022) EWHC - it’s just the 56 pages long! I wouldn’t be confident of a ‘win’ if I was Rooney! However @prh47bridge has (as ever) provided brilliant summaries 🙏