Friday, 10 July 2015

Words Pt 1

Goodness Gracious, Freddie lost ! Not surprising when one reads the Judgement, here it is !

Now Guys and gals, I'm going to go through this thing the best I can. I will only consider the legal arguments only as much as I understand them. I only attended ONE day (4 hours) at the closing submissions stage of the case, but I do have my notes and I do recall some things that were said that will stick in my mind.

As I sat there listening to words like 'pleadings', 'amended' applications, I started to wonder if Freddie had been let down by his own legal team.

Let's look at the judgement which sets out the background to the application 
 'He accepted that this part of the claimant's case could not succeed' ? 
I remember a discussion about just how many people would have read that e-book. No one actually knew, that is, no one appears to have asked either Ms Ward or the site administrators, about viewing figures. I know my viewing figures, but never mind eh.
Poor Freddie must have felt very confused in the middle of these chaps in wigs, citing this that and the other caselaw. This defence and that, for slander, libel, etc etc. 
One thing I was completely confused about was the fact that Freddie had not sued the BBC and ITV  ! Ms Ward's 'words' started life online, but they ended up on ITV news, via BBC journalists.

So, what do you think ? Could Karin Ward have reasonably  foresaw the USE of her interview being used and reused or republished, by various media outlets ?
Freddie's legals had obviously not seen Meirion Jones' 'script' because he at least, certainly intended to use her 'words' did he not ?

Not crossed examined why not ? 
'Dossier' now I remember their being some question as to whether Thomas used this word to Ward
Why so vague about such an important fact as to an interviewee's approval to broadcast ? In any event, if she didn't approve, she shouldn't have done the interview on camera in the first place.

I feel sorry for Freddie it seems he's been stuffed all ways. I'll cover his testimony and, more importantly, that of the two women called to give evidence for and against the defendant, next time.



  1. I'm guessing that the legal strategy might have been to make Ms Ward the first brick removed, and then go for those who repeated the libel. One important thing to consider is that the cleverest in the room never used her. She was NOT in the Exposure programme.

    Her most outrageous stories were against Gary Glitter, but Gary could only have ever won a pyrrhic victory since he would get no damages anyway as he had no reputation to lose, although he might have been awarded costs at least. But why should Gary give a shit about this country or those living in it? Not one reason that I can see, and not in the slightest can one blame him for keeping out of it.

    1. ITV was ready to use that clip until that injunction was slapped on them. After all they used it as soon as it was lifted. But then Fred was not their target, his reputation being collateral damage !

  2. No professional documentary filmmaker or TV company wastes their time and budget shooting a prearranged interview if they haven't got a signed agreement from the interviewee that the footage can be used.
    That's Filming Interviews Page One.

    1. @JohnS
      Nothing seems to have been produced in evidence to demonstrate that; they all seem to be prevaricating and talking about presumptions and then the judge just says they are telling the truth in his opinion, or he quotes some case-law. I may have missed but I didnlt see any reference to written contracts anywhere in the published judgement.