Woman found guilty of defamation for describing her exh's DV

[Bluestitch]

He put his hands round her throat. But the judge decided he was only trying to silence her, not kill her so she shouldn't have used the term 'strangled'. And she has also been suffering cancer during this legal battle. She's taking it to the Supreme Court, good for her.

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/01/23/woman-found-have-defamed-ex-husband-facebook-takes-fight-supreme/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

It’s all pretty nonsensical to me, but I think they need a reality check of how this will look to ordinary people.

He just picked his nose on camera.

Sorry. It’s making me feel very ignorant indeed.

You know that point when you think it can't get any worse and then it does? I've reached it.
The law is not fit for purpose.

He just said, “yes, there was just one incident of strangulation”.

So it was strangulation then?

He just said, “yes, there was just one incident of strangulation”.
And just one? How many before it counts???

The trouble is that it does potentially set a worrying precedent for any appellate court - it's v rare they conclude the trial judge got it wrong. Possibly more likely here than in many since it's about how written words get interpreted, so less of an emphasis on impression of witnesses etc, but virtually every appellate court (esp the highest appellate court) worries at least out loud about overruling a lower court.
Remember that the SC is not about the rights and wrongs of what he did. It's just about what she said - and the extent to which they can properly step in at this stage to overturn what the judge at first instance did. Very very few cases succeed in the SC if the case has been lost on 2 previous occasions.

Barrister saying he 'simply' put one hand on her mouth and one on her neck to silence her. Her claims he made threats to kill during assault not held by original judge. Lord interjected- it was sufficiently violent to leave red marks still visible 2 hours later. Barrister says he is not defending conduct, merely stating it was not of the magnitude claimed by Mrs Stocker.

Also focusing on the fact that she repeated 'tried to strangle's twice, in response to new gf questions on why he was arrested and also mentioned removal from house and gun issues- he's arguing that this was gratuitously thrown in to imply his client is dangerous.

I get your point penguin.

However it’s the fact that a woman who had hands placed around her neck with such force that the marks were still visible two hours later, should then find herself having to prove she thought he was going to kill her, that is so repugnant.

Judges now discussing use of dictionary definitions. Are they old fashioned now in world of internet and search engines opening up new interpretation of words? What about abbreviations and emojis?

Aliens, I know, I know (barrister/judge here, not the first time I have heard or made these arguments!) It is repugnant - and it was repugnant at first instance. But that was for that judge, not these judges, IYSWIM.

Remember that the SC is not about the rights and wrongs of what he did. It's just about what she said - and the extent to which they can properly step in at this stage to overturn what the judge at first instance did.

We all understand that, but what she said has to be taken in the context of what he did and also in the context of where she said it.

If the court doesn't overturn this then it sets a worrying precedent for future DV cases.

Strangulation does not always result in death, surely a woman’ can say she has been strangled even when she has survived the attack?

This is a shocking case and I definitely think the judge was wrong and that the woman's legal team should have queried/challenged it immediately.
In wrestling there are various holds, one of which is a "stranglehold", which is meant to subdue your opponent, by choking and cutting off the air supply so that they submit.
Obviously there is no intention to kill your opponent, and as the judge said that the husband did not intend to kill the woman, then that is simply his opinion, and it is a fact that strangling whether intentional or not does result in death.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chokehold

en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/stranglehold

This case is really important; they are changing the meaning of words.
'Strangle', 'suffocate', 'stab'; these are all acts of violence that have specific meaning and do not necessarily end in death.

Ah ok, thanks for clarifying that penguin.

Barrister dismissing the claims by Liberty and others that DV victims may be unfairly sued for defamation when describing their attack if they inadvertently use the wrong word- there is nothing new about having to choose your words carefully.

Some unpleasant comments about the claimant not being some poor 'hapless' victim- attempting to use the fact that she was strong enough to immediately report to the police against her.

Barrister- opposition went beyond scope of the appeal by questioning Mitting's original judgement- there can be no question about the facts that he determined regarding the assault.

Reading Mitting's findings- he tried to silence her and couldn't 'shut her up' just by putting his hand over her mouth so had to hold her neck to keep her head still. Not the same as intent to kill or asphyxiate. These are the findings of fact appellate court must abide by. Fucking hell.

It's OK because we're dealing with a billionaire, not a "North London gangster".

The original judge thought the XH wasn't capable of murder (probably because money).

And now a discussion of the best way to shut someone up (from the original case).

The red marks on her neck weren't because of any gripping. "It's not attractive, but it's not a strangling." "It wasn't a violent gripping of the neck."

Aren't these men ashamed to be apologists for this?

Lady Black questioning why holding someone by the neck isn't strangulation regardless of intent- doesn't look impressed.

"I'm not defending it as attractive."

"Unattractive" is coming up a lot as a euphemism.

Strangling your wife = unattractive.

"I'm not belittling it". Of course you are, you prick. You're saying it's "unattractive".

Lord to barrister- I really don't think this is your best point. Holding somebody's throat to the point they still have red marks 2 hours later is very serious.

Lord- original judgement based upon judge finding that her FB comments implied attempt to kill. If we don't find that to be the case to what extent might that unravel the judge's fact finding?