To think Rebekah Vardy has no chance?

[StillCoughingandLaughing]

Her case hinges on claiming someone has somehow hacked her account; be that someone she employs or someone who has somehow done it at random. Colleen Rooney very, very deliberately (and now infamously) stated ‘It’s... Rebekah Vardy’s account’.

She’s suing for libel, yet she hasn’t been personally accused. That wording was not an accident. Surely unless she can somehow prove that the fake stories were not accessed via her account, she has no case?

I remember Coleen's statement going viral within about minutes of her posting it - it was savage .

I can't get too het up about the waste of money, it's theirs to waste.

It's a bit of light relief amongst all the doom and gloom.

RV needs to point out how she was libelled - I guess her name was on the headline/ social media post by CR in a public way so there’s that, and she needs to show that her character has been defamed by the posting. It like like it has just by reading some of these posts. She has been publicly accused - that’s what the libel is. So it’s more about that I would suggest.
Maybe she didn’t do what is being said and maybe she has evidence. Let it all play out. Try not to take sides. We never fully know what’s happened or see the full picture. Also just a reminder be careful what’s posted here on this platform this can count as libel too.

The same way PR companies run A list movie stars accounts or dead pop star or movie stars accounts. It’s all digital PR and there are thousands of companies in the U.K. doing this. Colleen was very clever.

I’m another one who can’t understand how RV thinks she can win, she has to prove that CR accused her (or her account in this case) of something that isn’t true...she said herself early on that even she doesn’t know who has access to her account, so that said, how can she prove it wasn’t any of the many people who had access to her account?

I think she is very silly to take it this far, she’d have been better fronting it out and saying ‘look it was someone who had access to my account, I’ve made changes to make this more secure within my team and I apologise to Coleen for these leaks’!

@Fatted

Coleen was the one who slandered Vardy, so she has to prove what she said was true.

At the end of the day, the pair of them are both doing very nicely I would imagine out of magazine deals, social media followers and over exposure on the whole load of nonsense.

No she didn't. Her lawyers would have checked then triple checked her tweet before she was allowed to post it. RV is the one that's brought the case to court so she has to prove that CR was in the wrong. Team Rooney here

Surely this could be answered quite simply by the tabloid papers who bought the stories? Bought them from who? They must have a paper trail. I wonder if they can be called to provide evidence?

@Redrosesandsunsets sorry but I took sides the minute I read the ‘It’s.....Rebecca Vardy’s account’

The Wagatha Christie scandal was one of very few high points in 2020!

Hasn't Vardy been outed as the secret wag (or something equally ridiculous) who used to sell stories on the other wags to the Sun?

@Fatted

Coleen was the one who slandered Vardy, so she has to prove what she said was true.

At the end of the day, the pair of them are both doing very nicely I would imagine out of magazine deals, social media followers and over exposure on the whole load of nonsense.

But that's the question. The statement that the information was published from Vardy's account was a straight statement of fact, and simply saying that doesn't necessarily amount to a statement that Vardy published it.

By the way, it would be libel, not slander.

I could be wrong but I think there's some law to protect journalists from having to reveal their sources. I'm sure someone will correct me.

Does Rebecca have to prove a full list of everyone who had access to her account?

Is she not doing it for the publicity and hoping to get a reality TV series out of it?

Someone shouldn't be able to get away with libel by choosing their words carefully so as to protect themselves but still cause all that damage to another persons reputation.

I also don't think that she really did choose her words that carefully either or that the initial post was layered to the hilt like someone said...it sounds like she wasn't as careful/smart as she thought she was being...I just read it again and she said

*......For a few years now someone who I trusted to follow me on my personal instagram account has been consistently informing the SUN newspaper of private posts and stories.....

......Now I know for certain which account/individual it's come from.....

....saved and screenshotted all the posts which clearly show just one person viewed them......

....it's...... Rebekah Vardy's account*

She specifically said it was someone who she trusted to follow her account who leaked the stories, there can be no doubt that she is 100% pointing the finger at Rebekah there!

I think the / have her covered.

She hasnt out right accused her.

She's just said where it came from.

Ok, I actually AM a libel lawyer and while it's entertaining to read people's efforts at guessing the law , the true position is this.

Vardy is suing Colleen for libel so the burden of proof rests on Vardy to prove 3 things, that 1) words have been published 2) to third parties (ie not just said to her) and that the words are 3) defamatory of her, which means that they have caused or are likely to cause serious damage to her reputation. She has a slam dunk on all of these points.

Then the burden of proof shifts to Rooney as a defendant to see if she can make out one of the recognised defences to a libel claim. If she can, Rooney wins, if she can't Vardey wins.

Rooney has indicated that she intends to rely on the defence of truth. She has to prove, on the balance of probabilities (so basically more than 50/50) that it was indeed Vardey who was selling the fake insta stories to the press.

In practice, however, it will be as much be Vardey who has to prove that it wasn't her, ie it that her account was hacked and someone else was doing it. Because the strong inference is that the person who accesses and Insta account is the owner of that account. (I had a broadly similar case years ago where a client was falsely accused of a crime and the defendant's defence was they were guilty. We in practice had to put together a case showing that she wasn't guilty of what was alleged because we had to rebut the defendant's case that she was guilty. We won).

Vardey will need to be able to deploy fairly compelling evidence - probably forensic IT evidence (and who knows, she may have it ) that her account was hacked and was being accessed by someone else. If she can do this then she will win because it would mean that Rooney had falsely defamed her, and Rooney will have to pay damages and will be the subject of an injunction banning her from repeating the same or any similar allegations about Vardey.

I'd say the case has a reasonable chance of settling because it's pretty high stakes and whatever evidence Vardey has about the alleged hack she will have to provide to Rooney's team well in advance of any trial.

Any questions?
I will send you my bill.

With the one person views them comment

Well one perps. Has viewed them according to that account...

Her lawyers would have checked then triple checked her tweet before she was allowed to post it.

They must be shit lawyers then if they let her post that. She specifically said that a person she trusted to follow her personal insta had sold the stories and that only one person had viewed them. A decent lawyer wouldn't have let her say that!

Oh, and the suggestions that Rooney hasn't outright accused Vardey are bollocks. The ordinary reasonable reader (for that is the test) will have understood Rooney to be alleging as a matter of fact that Vardey had been selling stories.
It's much like it's completely pointless to say "Allegedly....[insert highly defamatory accusation about someone]. It won't get you off the hook at all because people know exactly what you were trying to say and the damage is just the same.

How does the defence of 'she said it was her account not her' work? Does anyone really think that "...….Rebekah Vardy's account" implies anything other than that Rebekah Vardy was responsible? I'm seeing this defence roundly mocked on twitter.

Of course it implies Rebekah Vardy was responsible. I believe that was exactly what it was meant to imply. But implication is not fact, especially when it comes to the law. Even if Vardy can somehow prove she went nowhere near the account at the time the stories were posted and that it was actually her assistant/PR consultant/dog walker who saw and sold the stories, she hasn’t proved she’s been libelled - she’s proved Rooney’s statement that ‘It’s... Rebekah Vardy’s account’ was accurate. She might be able to prove that she personally is innocent - proving that a statement of fact regarding account access is somehow libellous will be much more difficult.

@user1481840227

It’s only libel if it’s not true. You can’t complain about getting your reputation trashed if you sell your mates’ stories to the tabloids...

@HotSince63

I could be wrong but I think there's some law to protect journalists from having to reveal their sources. I'm sure someone will correct me.

Yes, journalists are indeed allowed to protect their sources.

Vardey will need to be able to deploy fairly compelling evidence - probably forensic IT evidence (and who knows, she may have it ) that her account was hacked and was being accessed by someone else. If she can do this then she will win because it would mean that Rooney had falsely defamed her, and Rooney will have to pay damages and will be the subject of an injunction banning her from repeating the same or any similar allegations about Vardey.

CR however also has a defence of good faith. On a balance of probabilities what's more likely ? A hacked account, or someone lying about it being hacked to avoid the consequences ?

Oohhh @girasol

I've just fell in love with you. What an amazing post.

I imagine you look like Nicola Walker off the split with great suits and hair.

Great post @girasol.