Bercow lost

[Xenia]

Not a good decision for free speech.....extends innuendo a bit far in my view so I suppose she might appeal.

www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2013/1342.html

"Beyond reasonable doubt" is the standard of proof in a criminal trial, not a civil one. This was a civil trial where the standard of proof is "balance of probability".

Carter Ruck argued that Bercow's "innocent face" was meant in a straightforward way. McAlpine's barristers argued that it was a not very subtle innuendo. The judge (and I) agree with McAlpine. I am sure that Bercow's intelligence was a factor as well as how clued in she was. I suspect that the fact she apologised 4 times fairly shortly after tweeting (and I don't think in one of her apologies said that she was naïve) would lend weight to McAlpine's case.

Line,

She was not found guilty of sarcasm, she was found guilty of pointing her followers fairly directly to an accusation of paedophilia against an innocent man, and in a fairly revolting way (is paedophilia something to discuss with a nudge and a wink?). I am amazed she got away with the stated £15k. I think McAlpine was very generous if he agreed to that.

Lougle,

Sorry X posted re evidentiary test.

Civil matter so it's balance of probabilities standard.
Beyond reasonable doubt is the criminal standard.

Completely correct decision in my book, innuendo has long been a part of defamation laws. She knew exactly what she was implying and was trying to say exactly what she wanted to say but somehow hide behind a thin shield of "I was being cheeky/ I never directly said such a thing"

Thanks, lougle and larry, I thought it might be something like that.
Is libel always a civil matter or can you elect to have it heard in a criminal court?

Thanks, mayor, never heard of "balance of probabilities", but that shows how little I know about the workings of the law.

Claig,

I am not legal but I think it is always civil. There is no criminal charge of libel. In any event it would never be up to the claimant to choose a criminal court; that would be up to the CPS.

It's always civil
It's a statement that lowers a person in the eyes of others in society. Truth is a defence to such a claim.

This is why the question being posed earlier on of "why did he not go after everyone who tweeted/ so it's libel for one person but not another?" Etc. seem to crop up
It's a private civil matter, so it's up to the defamed to pursue the claim. There's little point in going after those with no cash at a basic level but even more so the only reason to go after the high profile people who made the statements are because they're the only ones people take notice of.

If joe soap says something untrue about a famous person then pursuing them is only going to give the statement more airtime and get it repeated and give it credence, so pursuing a claim can be counterproductive.
If a prominent person says it then it can be the opposite case and leaving the statement unchallenged will give it credence.

"It seems she has been found guilty of sarcasm"

The Establishment don't like her. Everything follows from that.

Channel 4 said it was a landmark case because it is the first time that someone has been found guilty of libel over a tweet.

Why is it such a landmark? Has it set a precedent? Surely libel is libel whether it is a tweet or in a newspaper or in public?

Presumably just landmark in the sense of being the first via twitter.
There's nothing revolutionary in the legal theory or principles being applied. In fact you could see twitter as more valid medium for someone to be pursued as its publishing in one of the truest sense of the words. In this case rather than a comment in private it was a comment directly to 860 people with the potential of being published to millions more.
Suprised it's the first as there's been a fair few criminal prosecutions on the back of tweeys

Yes

Some people here seem to think that rich old Tories shouldn't go to the law when accused of something vile because they're rich old Tories and may have friends in the judiciary.

I'm not generally a fan of rich old Tories and definitely not of child abusers.

But I think everyone should have recourse to the law regardless of their funds which sadly, doesn't happen.

I think that should change and maybe because of Leveson it might.

Screaming 'freedom of speech' isn't going to help little people. It's going to help the big people.

I like Sally Bercow. But she was an idiot.
.

She was not found guilty of sarcasm, she was found guilty of pointing her followers fairly directly to an accusation of paedophilia against an innocent man, and in a fairly revolting way (is paedophilia something to discuss with a nudge and a wink?). I am amazed she got away with the stated £15k. I think McAlpine was very generous if he agreed to that.
Well said. The power of twitter and other social media is that a libel can be so much more easily seen by people than the traditional paper form. I think it said she had more than 50,000 deluded sheep followers, so presumably the libel would have been seen by at least that many.

i hate the way everyone jumps on the bandwagon on social media. all the re-tweeting
It will hopefully show everyone that they need to take responsibility for what they say/tweet
And not just on twitter- the first place I saw McAlpines name mentioned was on here!