“(1) In return for cash donations to the Conservative Party, the Claimant corruptly offered for sale the opportunity to influence government policy and gain unfair advantage through secret meetings with the Prime Minister and other senior ministers. (2) The Claimant made the offer, even though he knew that the money offered for secret meetings was to come, in breach of the ban under UK electoral law, from Middle Eastern investors in a Liechtenstein fund; and (3) further, in order to circumvent and thereby evade the law, the Claimant was happy that the foreign donors should use deceptive devices, such as creating an artificial UK company to donate the money or using UK employees as conduits, so that the true source of the donation would be concealed.”
“7(1) That what the Claimant said in the course of a meeting on15th March 2012 , as co-Treasurer and Board member of the Conservative Party, in claiming: (a) that the Conservative Party would accept large donations from persons whose sole purpose in making the donations was to advance their business interests by obtaining direct access to the Prime Minister, by lobbying on policy areas affecting their business and by moving in circles where they would pick up useful intelligence to progress their business strategy; (b) That in return for six-figure donations, such persons would be able to achieve that purpose in the ways they wanted; and (c) That in return for donations of£250,000 a year, they would obtain special access to the Prime Minister and senior governments ministers, would get noticed and be taken really seriously, would be able to operate at a higher level within the Party (and, thus, the Government) and would have things open up’ for them; was inappropriate, unacceptable and wrong and gave rise to an impression of impropriety. 7(2) That the Claimant, when faced with the prospect of donations being made to the Conservative Party from an overseas fund (which was not itself eligible to make donations under the relevant law), was prepared to contemplate ways in which donations from that source could be made to the Party, namely; (a) Through using a legal loophole that would permit a UK company, carrying on business within the jurisdiction, to make donations from such a source; or (b) By having individuals on the UK electoral register make donations in their own name; even though the use of either route would result in the concealment of the true source of the donation, contrary to the spirit of the law which was intended to ensure that the source of any donation over£7,500 would be made public.”
“It will be awesome for your business.” [2] Peter Cruddas, the multimillionaire Tory fundraiser, offered a lobbyist and her two overseas clients direct access to David Cameron if they joined a “premier league” of donors who give six-figure sums. [3] The offer was made even though he knew the money would come from a fund in Liechtenstein that was not eligible to make donations under election law. [4] Options discussed included creating a British subsidiary or using UK employees as conduits for the donation. [5] Cruddas resigned within hours of this newspaper publishing details of its investigation. [6] The overseas clients he met were, in fact, undercover reporters posing as wealth fund executives who had made clear they wished to develop contacts with the prime minister and other senior ministers to further their business. [7] During a three-month investigation they had hired Sarah Southern, a former Cameron aide now working as a lobbyist, who advised them that making a “huge donation” was the best way to gain access to senior government figures. [8] Her connections led to a two-hour meeting with Cruddas this month in which he laid bare the extent to which the party has been prepared to sell access to Cameron in exchange for cash. He revealed: [9] ■ Donors who want to be “taken seriously” are told they should give£250,000 to join the “premier league”, and then “things will open up for you”
“If we do become premier league, what would we get in addition?” [25] Cruddas: “... The first thing we want to do is get you at the Cameron and Osborne dinners.” [26] He added later: “In fact, some of our bigger donors have been for dinner in No 10 Downing Street, in the prime minister’s private apartment, with Samantha.”
“Spot on ... You could ask him about that. That would be a very good thing.” [27] Cruddas, who has given£1.2m to the party, said he had used his access to Cameron to object to the Tobin tax on financial transactions: “He said don’t even worry about it...” [28] Cruddas said that big donors could not determine policy, but he would make sure that their suggestions were fed into the No 10 policy unit. “If you are unhappy about something ... we’ll listen to you and we’ll put it into the policy committee at No 10. We feed all feedback into the policy committee,” he said. [29] The meetings were also good for intelligence. “It’s key bits of information that you can use ... Frequently I say, well, I was with the prime minister last week and he told me this. [30] “You do really pick up a lot of information... You are not seeing the prime minister, you’re seeing David Cameron. But, within that room, everything’s confidential and you will be able to ask him practically any question you want.” [31] The reporters could also impress clients with their top contacts. “It’ll be awesome for your business. You’ll be ... well pleased. Because your guests will get photographed with David Cameron,” he said. [32] Business clients could also meet the chancellor. “If you ring me up ... and [say] I’ve got this really important guy coming to this event, you know, really need to make sure George Osborne says hello to him, and I’ll make sure that happens, okay?” [33] There was still one problem, however. The proposed donation was being paid from a Liechtenstein fund and belonged ultimately to Middle Eastern investors. It was a foreign donation. Cruddas was happy for the reporters to find a way around this and said he’d arrange a meeting with the party’s “compliance people” to check that it was legitimate. One option was to create a UK company to donate the money. [34] He said: “Set up a company, employ some people to work here.” [35] Later, though, the reporters’ lobbyist spoke to party officials and returned. As the reporters, posing as executives, were British, the money could be channelled through them. [36] “[The company] would have to donate through an individual (perhaps a director of the company) who is registered on the UK electoral roll,”
“[The party] don’t pry as to where the money comes from, at all.” [37] Cruddas and Southern declined to comment. [38] A Conservative party spokesman said none of the donations was ever formally considered and that donations had to comply with electoral law, which was strictly enforced by the party’s compliance department. “Donations to the Conservative party do not buy party or government policy,” he added. “We will urgently investigate any evidence to the contrary.” [The First Article included a large picture of the Claimant with the caption:] “Peter Cruddas, main picture, and, inset, with the prime minister, said: ‘You will get to meet George Osborne, you will get to meet David Cameron’” [Inset with the picture on the front page was a large quotation:] “200 GRAND IS PREMIER LEAGUE... IT’LL BE AWESOME FOR YOUR BUSINESS”
“It will be awesome for your business.” [2] Peter Cruddas, the multimillionaire Tory fundraiser, offered a lobbyist and her two overseas clients direct access to David Cameron if they joined a “premier league” of donors who give six-figure sums. [3] The offer was made even though he knew the money would come from a fund in Liechtenstein that was not eligible to make donations under election law. [4] Options discussed included creating a British subsidiary or using UK employees as conduits for the donation. [5] Cruddas resigned within hours of this newspaper publishing details of its investigation. [6] The overseas clients he met were, in fact, undercover reporters posing as wealth fund executives who had made clear they wished to develop contacts with the prime minister and other senior ministers to further their business. [7] During a three-month investigation they had hired Sarah Southern, a former Cameron aide now working as a lobbyist, who advised them that making a “huge donation” was the best way to gain access to senior government figures. [8] Her connections led to a two-hour meeting with Cruddas this month in which he laid bare the extent to which the party has been prepared to sell access to Cameron in exchange for cash. He revealed: [9] ■ Donors who want to be “taken seriously” are told they should give£250,000 to join the “premier league”, and then “things will open up for you”
“If we do become premier league, what would we get in addition?” [25] Cruddas: “... The first thing we want to do is get you at the Cameron and Osborne dinners.” [26] He added later: “In fact, some of our bigger donors have been for dinner in No 10 Downing Street, in the prime minister’s private apartment, with Samantha.”
“Spot on ... You could ask him about that. That would be a very good thing.” [27] Cruddas, who has given£1.2m to the party, said he had used his access to Cameron to object to the Tobin tax on financial transactions: “He said don’t even worry about it...” [28] Cruddas said that big donors could not determine policy, but he would make sure that their suggestions were fed into the No 10 policy unit. “If you are unhappy about something ... we’ll listen to you and we’ll put it into the policy committee at No 10. We feed all feedback into the policy committee,” he said. [29] The meetings were also good for intelligence. “It’s key bits of information that you can use ... Frequently I say, well, I was with the prime minister last week and he told me this. [30] “You do really pick up a lot of information... You are not seeing the prime minister, you’re seeing David Cameron. But, within that room, everything’s confidential and you will be able to ask him practically any question you want.” [31] The reporters could also impress clients with their top contacts. “It’ll be awesome for your business. You’ll be ... well pleased. Because your guests will get photographed with David Cameron,” he said. [32] Business clients could also meet the chancellor. “If you ring me up ... and [say] I’ve got this really important guy coming to this event, you know, really need to make sure George Osborne says hello to him, and I’ll make sure that happens, okay?” [33] There was still one problem, however. The proposed donation was being paid from a Liechtenstein fund and belonged ultimately to Middle Eastern investors. It was a foreign donation. Cruddas was happy for the reporters to find a way around this and said he’d arrange a meeting with the party’s “compliance people” to check that it was legitimate. One option was to create a UK company to donate the money. [34] He said: “Set up a company, employ some people to work here.” [35] Later, though, the reporters’ lobbyist spoke to party officials and returned. As the reporters, posing as executives, were British, the money could be channelled through them. [36] “[The company] would have to donate through an individual (perhaps a director of the company) who is registered on the UK electoral roll,”
“[The party] don’t pry as to where the money comes from, at all.” [37] Cruddas and Southern declined to comment. [38] A Conservative party spokesman said none of the donations was ever formally considered and that donations had to comply with electoral law, which was strictly enforced by the party’s compliance department. “Donations to the Conservative party do not buy party or government policy,” he added. “We will urgently investigate any evidence to the contrary.” [The First Article included a large picture of the Claimant with the caption:] “Peter Cruddas, main picture, and, inset, with the prime minister, said: ‘You will get to meet George Osborne, you will get to meet David Cameron’” [Inset with the picture on the front page was a large quotation:] “200 GRAND IS PREMIER LEAGUE... IT’LL BE AWESOME FOR YOUR BUSINESS”
“When we talk about your donations, the first thing we want to do is get you at the Cameron and Osborne dinners.” [11] Asked what they needed to give, Cruddas said: “Minimum 100 grand a year.”
“Hundred grand is not premier league. It’s not bad. It’s probably bottom of the premier league. Two hundred grand, 250 is premier league.” [12] He explained: “Things will open up for you but ... it’s no good scratching around and, ‘here’s 10 grand now and then we’ll send you five grand’. Minimum 100 grand ... But the nearer you can get to 200. ” [13] The two financiers were in fact undercover reporters who were secretly filming Cruddas as he laid bare the extraordinary extent to which the Conservative party is willing to work hand-in-glove with lobbyists to sell access to the prime minister and his cabinet. [14] Whereas the last Labour government was accused of taking cash for peerages, the Tories are making£5m a year by taking cash for Cameron. [15] The revelations are particularly damaging in the light of comments made by Cameron himself, just months before he was elected in 2010, in which he warned that “secret corporate lobbying” was the “next big scandal waiting to happen” in British politics. [16] “It arouses people’s worst fears and suspicions about how our political system works, with money buying power, power fishing for money and a cosy club at the top making decisions in their own interest. We must be the party that sorts all this out,” he said The issue of party funding came to the fore last November when the committee on standards in public life warned that big donors were being given “preferential access to political decision makers” and recommended that donations should be capped at£10,000 . Their report has so far been ignored. [17] Giving evidence before the committee, Andrew Feldman, the Tory co-chairman, insisted: “There is no question of individuals either influencing policy or gaining an unfair advantage by virtue of their financial contributions to the party.” [18] However, Sir Christopher Kelly, chairman of the committee, said on Friday that this newspaper’s investigation was further evidence that there was a “significant risk of both influence and access being granted in return for donations”. [19] The undercover investigation began after a tip-off from a lobbyist that a former Cameron aide was selling introductions to her old boss. [20] Mark Adams, a former private secretary to John Major and Tony Blair, had met Sarah Southern, the former aide, at the Tory party conference. He said she had boasted that she had just made a “tidy sum” out of introducing a client to Cameron. Her brazen sales pitch included handing out a business card with a photograph of herself with Cameron. [21] Two undercover reporters posing as overseas financiers met Southern in a hotel overlooking Lake Zurich. They explained that their clients intended to buy distressed government assets, such as Royal Mail, and wanted to make some political connections. [22] Southern, who had set herself up as a “political consultant” after seven years at the Tory party, told them she was uniquely well placed to arrange introductions to Cameron. [23] “I spent more time in the first third of [2010] with DC than I did with anybody else in my life,” she said. “I am friends with all the people who are now his closest advisers. I’m friends with the people who are chiefs of staff to members of the cabinet. I’m also friends with a number of people in the cabinet,” she added. [24] Such was Cameron’s confidence in Southern that he entrusted his pregnant wife to her care on the 2010 election day. They had spent the day shopping, Southern boasted over dinner. She had introduced a client from an American firm to the prime minister at the party conference. The businessman was “especially delighted” because Cameron had “got the message that we wanted him to get”, she said. [25] For a fee of£15,000 a month, Southern promised to introduce the undercover reporters to top politicians, including the prime minister, and gather intelligence on policy. No fee was paid by The Sunday Times. [26] In the following weeks she invited her new clients to exclusive donor lunches and dinners with eight ministers including Theresa May, the home secretary, Philip Hammond, the defence secretary, Eric Pickles, the communities secretary, and Michael Gove, the education secretary. She also said she had reserved a£10,000 table at the Conservative Black and White Ball in February and promised Cameron would be brought over to meet them. The reporters were unable to attend because of security protocols. [27] However, the best way to gain access and influence, she advised, was to make a “huge donation”
“There’s a lot you can do from your clients’ point of view.” [45] He later promised: “If I know what your expectations are, I can manage those. And I’ll make sure, if you ring me up [or] Sarah rings me up one day and says I’ve got this really important guy coming to this event, you know, really need to make sure George Osborne says hello to him, and I’ll make sure that happens ... not officially, but I’ll make sure it happens.” [46] His willingness to put the cabinet up for sale was not for nothing. He said he was building a war chest to defend the proposed changes to constituency boundaries, which he said could gift the party an extra 50 seats. [47] The reporters were then invited to sponsor the Conservatives’ summer party for about£150,000 . In return they could fill three tables with their clients and sit next to the prime minister. [48] Last week Southern said she was negotiating the sponsorship deal with the party. She reported back that in exchange for the cash the reporters could host private drinks beforehand with their clients, Cameron and 20 members of the cabinet. [49] Cruddas had started the meeting with the reporters on a cautious note, insisting there was “no cash for access”, but he repeatedly contradicted himself by explaining exactly how much access they could get in return for their cash. [50] “Because we depend on donors so much, we have to be very careful what we say. It sounds a lot worse than it is, I promise you ... You cannot buy access to the prime minister, full stop,” he said. [51] He went on: “If you donate, you will be invited to events where the prime minister is there. And frequently, if you get into the right club and I can advise you, you could well be at a private house having a private dinner with the chancellor, William Hague, David Cameron, Michael Gove, all the top ministers, the chairman of the party, where around that table there will be very distinguished business people.” [52] Asked whether a donation would buy the right to influence government policy, Cruddas again began cautiously but went on to assure the reporters that the prime minister “does tap into us on a regular basis”. [53] “If you’re ... unhappy about something ... we’ll listen to you and we’ll put it into the policy committee at No 10. We feed all feedback into the policy committee. But just because you donate money doesn’t give you a voice at the top table to change policy. That doesn’t happen,” he said. [54] Cruddas said the party was having to fend off anger among donors about its proposals to legalise gay marriage and disclosed that one donor had written a paper on the subject for the No 10 policy unit. [55] “We’ve fed that back into the party and there are some brilliant points in it and his voice has been heard. But it’s been heard by a committee that will analyse his points against other points, but at least it’s getting in there,” he said. [56] Giving an example of the kind of “key bits of information” they could pick up in discussions with politicians, he said he had been told that a tax cut which was good news for high earners was due to be announced in the budget the following week. [57] The following day it emerged that Osborne was planning to scrap the 50p top rate of tax. [58] Cruddas, who said he was dashing off that evening to have drinks at St James’s Palace with Prince Charles, even offered to make sure the fake financiers and their clients were invited to events at Buckingham Palace and Windsor Castle if they made a donation. [59] Only one problem remained. The money on the table came from a foreign wealth fund, which is not eligible to make political donations under UK law. But Cruddas and Southern were prepared to discuss a range of ways that the money could be brought onshore (see below). [60] After the meeting Southern sent the reporters an encrypted document advising them how to make their donation. In a section titled “Worst case scenario”, she warned that journalists were especially interested in those who had “donated huge amounts of money”. [61] She cautioned: “It should be considered that wider media interest into lobbying and what cash changes hands is the next ‘MPs’ expenses’.”
“When we talk about your donations, the first thing we want to do is get you at the Cameron and Osborne dinners.” [11] Asked what they needed to give, Cruddas said: “Minimum 100 grand a year.”
“Hundred grand is not premier league. It’s not bad. It’s probably bottom of the premier league. Two hundred grand, 250 is premier league.” [12] He explained: “Things will open up for you but ... it’s no good scratching around and, ‘here’s 10 grand now and then we’ll send you five grand’. Minimum 100 grand ... But the nearer you can get to 200. ” [13] The two financiers were in fact undercover reporters who were secretly filming Cruddas as he laid bare the extraordinary extent to which the Conservative party is willing to work hand-in-glove with lobbyists to sell access to the prime minister and his cabinet. [14] Whereas the last Labour government was accused of taking cash for peerages, the Tories are making£5m a year by taking cash for Cameron. [15] The revelations are particularly damaging in the light of comments made by Cameron himself, just months before he was elected in 2010, in which he warned that “secret corporate lobbying” was the “next big scandal waiting to happen” in British politics. [16] “It arouses people’s worst fears and suspicions about how our political system works, with money buying power, power fishing for money and a cosy club at the top making decisions in their own interest. We must be the party that sorts all this out,” he said The issue of party funding came to the fore last November when the committee on standards in public life warned that big donors were being given “preferential access to political decision makers” and recommended that donations should be capped at£10,000 . Their report has so far been ignored. [17] Giving evidence before the committee, Andrew Feldman, the Tory co-chairman, insisted: “There is no question of individuals either influencing policy or gaining an unfair advantage by virtue of their financial contributions to the party.” [18] However, Sir Christopher Kelly, chairman of the committee, said on Friday that this newspaper’s investigation was further evidence that there was a “significant risk of both influence and access being granted in return for donations”. [19] The undercover investigation began after a tip-off from a lobbyist that a former Cameron aide was selling introductions to her old boss. [20] Mark Adams, a former private secretary to John Major and Tony Blair, had met Sarah Southern, the former aide, at the Tory party conference. He said she had boasted that she had just made a “tidy sum” out of introducing a client to Cameron. Her brazen sales pitch included handing out a business card with a photograph of herself with Cameron. [21] Two undercover reporters posing as overseas financiers met Southern in a hotel overlooking Lake Zurich. They explained that their clients intended to buy distressed government assets, such as Royal Mail, and wanted to make some political connections. [22] Southern, who had set herself up as a “political consultant” after seven years at the Tory party, told them she was uniquely well placed to arrange introductions to Cameron. [23] “I spent more time in the first third of [2010] with DC than I did with anybody else in my life,” she said. “I am friends with all the people who are now his closest advisers. I’m friends with the people who are chiefs of staff to members of the cabinet. I’m also friends with a number of people in the cabinet,” she added. [24] Such was Cameron’s confidence in Southern that he entrusted his pregnant wife to her care on the 2010 election day. They had spent the day shopping, Southern boasted over dinner. She had introduced a client from an American firm to the prime minister at the party conference. The businessman was “especially delighted” because Cameron had “got the message that we wanted him to get”, she said. [25] For a fee of£15,000 a month, Southern promised to introduce the undercover reporters to top politicians, including the prime minister, and gather intelligence on policy. No fee was paid by The Sunday Times. [26] In the following weeks she invited her new clients to exclusive donor lunches and dinners with eight ministers including Theresa May, the home secretary, Philip Hammond, the defence secretary, Eric Pickles, the communities secretary, and Michael Gove, the education secretary. She also said she had reserved a£10,000 table at the Conservative Black and White Ball in February and promised Cameron would be brought over to meet them. The reporters were unable to attend because of security protocols. [27] However, the best way to gain access and influence, she advised, was to make a “huge donation”
“There’s a lot you can do from your clients’ point of view.” [45] He later promised: “If I know what your expectations are, I can manage those. And I’ll make sure, if you ring me up [or] Sarah rings me up one day and says I’ve got this really important guy coming to this event, you know, really need to make sure George Osborne says hello to him, and I’ll make sure that happens ... not officially, but I’ll make sure it happens.” [46] His willingness to put the cabinet up for sale was not for nothing. He said he was building a war chest to defend the proposed changes to constituency boundaries, which he said could gift the party an extra 50 seats. [47] The reporters were then invited to sponsor the Conservatives’ summer party for about£150,000 . In return they could fill three tables with their clients and sit next to the prime minister. [48] Last week Southern said she was negotiating the sponsorship deal with the party. She reported back that in exchange for the cash the reporters could host private drinks beforehand with their clients, Cameron and 20 members of the cabinet. [49] Cruddas had started the meeting with the reporters on a cautious note, insisting there was “no cash for access”, but he repeatedly contradicted himself by explaining exactly how much access they could get in return for their cash. [50] “Because we depend on donors so much, we have to be very careful what we say. It sounds a lot worse than it is, I promise you ... You cannot buy access to the prime minister, full stop,” he said. [51] He went on: “If you donate, you will be invited to events where the prime minister is there. And frequently, if you get into the right club and I can advise you, you could well be at a private house having a private dinner with the chancellor, William Hague, David Cameron, Michael Gove, all the top ministers, the chairman of the party, where around that table there will be very distinguished business people.” [52] Asked whether a donation would buy the right to influence government policy, Cruddas again began cautiously but went on to assure the reporters that the prime minister “does tap into us on a regular basis”. [53] “If you’re ... unhappy about something ... we’ll listen to you and we’ll put it into the policy committee at No 10. We feed all feedback into the policy committee. But just because you donate money doesn’t give you a voice at the top table to change policy. That doesn’t happen,” he said. [54] Cruddas said the party was having to fend off anger among donors about its proposals to legalise gay marriage and disclosed that one donor had written a paper on the subject for the No 10 policy unit. [55] “We’ve fed that back into the party and there are some brilliant points in it and his voice has been heard. But it’s been heard by a committee that will analyse his points against other points, but at least it’s getting in there,” he said. [56] Giving an example of the kind of “key bits of information” they could pick up in discussions with politicians, he said he had been told that a tax cut which was good news for high earners was due to be announced in the budget the following week. [57] The following day it emerged that Osborne was planning to scrap the 50p top rate of tax. [58] Cruddas, who said he was dashing off that evening to have drinks at St James’s Palace with Prince Charles, even offered to make sure the fake financiers and their clients were invited to events at Buckingham Palace and Windsor Castle if they made a donation. [59] Only one problem remained. The money on the table came from a foreign wealth fund, which is not eligible to make political donations under UK law. But Cruddas and Southern were prepared to discuss a range of ways that the money could be brought onshore (see below). [60] After the meeting Southern sent the reporters an encrypted document advising them how to make their donation. In a section titled “Worst case scenario”, she warned that journalists were especially interested in those who had “donated huge amounts of money”. [61] She cautioned: “It should be considered that wider media interest into lobbying and what cash changes hands is the next ‘MPs’ expenses’.”
“The legal principles relevant to meaning have been summarised many times and are not in dispute.... They may be summarised in this way: (1) The governing principle is reasonableness. (2) The hypothetical reasonable reader is not naïve but he is not unduly suspicious. He can read between the lines. He can read in an implication more readily than a lawyer and may indulge in a certain amount of loose thinking but he must be treated as being a man who is not avid for scandal and someone who does not, and should not, select one bad meaning where other non-defamatory meanings are available. (3) Over-elaborate analysis is best avoided. (4) The intention of the publisher is irrelevant. (5) The article must be read as a whole, and any “bane and antidote” taken together. (6) The hypothetical reader is taken to be representative of those who would read the publication in question. …”
“[11] It appears to me to be particularly important where, as here, a judge is providing written reasons for his conclusion as to the meaning to be attributed to the words sued on, that he should not fall into the trap of conducting an over-elaborate analysis of the various passages relied on by the respective protagonists. The parties are entitled to a reasoned judgment but that does not mean that the court should overlook the fact that it is ultimately a question of the meaning which would be put on the words of the book by the ordinary reasonable reader. Such a hypothetical reader is assumed not to be a lawyer. He or she is very unlikely to read the whole book in a single sitting or to compare one passage with another or to focus on particular phrases. The exercise is essentially one of ascertaining the broad impression made on the hypothetical reader by the book taken as a whole. [12] A feature of the present dispute on meaning is that each side has pointed to different passages in the book which it maintains is supportive of its case as to the degree of seriousness of the libel. That is commonplace and legitimate. It is well established that the tribunal of fact, whether judge or jury, must take the bane and antidote of the publication together: ... As Lord Nicholls pointed out in Charleston v News Group Newspapers[1995] 2 AC 65 at 73-74, there is an artificiality about this approach since, especially in the case of a book, not all readers will read it from cover to cover. It is, however, clear from that and earlier authorities that the publication must be taken as a whole.”
“The lesson of the Labour years was that the party’s corrupt relationship with its donors had a corrosive effect on politics and government. Tony Blair himself was interviewed twice by police over ‘cash for peerages’. The Tories appear to be hurtling down a similar path”
“He is a criminal: he used to harass me when we were neighbours in the early 1990s, and when we met again in 2005 he indecently assaulted me”
“the notion that the same words should bear different meanings to different men and that more than one meaning should be 'right' conflicts with the whole training of a lawyer”
“7. Three possible meanings were ascribed to this packaging by the claimant: A: That aspartame is harmful or unhealthy. B: That there is a risk that aspartame is harmful or unhealthy. C: That aspartame is to be avoided. The defendant averred that it meant D: That these foods were for customers who found aspartame objectionable. 8. … Tugendhat J rejected meaning A outright. It accordingly leaves the stage. He found that a substantial number of consumers would derive meaning B from the packaging. He also found that a substantial number would derive meaning D from it. Meaning C, he found, added nothing to meaning B, and it too accordingly leaves the stage. The judge then applied to meanings B and D the single meaning rule.”
“In defamation cases, both civil and criminal, there has for centuries been a rule that the question libel or no libel is to be answered in respect of a single meaning. This is unproblematical where there is only one thing that the words can sensibly mean, but it can be highly problematical where reasonable people might put more than one construction on the words read in their proper context.”
“On the judge's unchallenged findings, the meanings which reasonable consumers might put on [the Defendant]'s health-food packaging include both the damaging and the innocuous. Why should the law not move on to proof of malice in relation to the damaging meaning and (if malice is proved) the consequential damage without artificially pruning the facts so as to presume the very thing – a single meaning - that the judge has found not to be the case?”
“3. The fiction that there is a single reasonable reader, so that words, duly taken in context, have only one meaning, has remained embedded in the law of defamation. In his classic judgment in Slim v Daily Telegraph[1968] 2 QB 157 , 172 endorsed in Charleston v News Group Newspapers[1995] 2 AC 65 , 72 Diplock LJ said: “the argument between lawyers as to the meaning of words starts with the unexpressed major premise that any particular combination of words has one meaning which is not necessarily the same as that intended by him who published them or understood by any of those who read them but is capable of ascertainment as being the 'right' meaning by the adjudicator to whom the law confides the responsibility of determining it”
“Where, as in the present case, words are published to the millions of readers of a popular newspaper, the chances are that if the words are reasonably capable of being understood as bearing more than one meaning, some readers will have understood them as bearing one of those meanings and some will have understood them as bearing others of those meanings. But none of this matters. What does matter is what the adjudicator at the trial thinks is the one and only meaning that the readers as reasonable men should have collectively understood the words to bear. That is 'the natural and ordinary meaning' of words in an action for libel”
“Juries, in theory, must be unanimous upon every issue on which they have to adjudicate; and since the damages that they award must depend upon the defamatory meaning that they attribute to the words, they must all agree upon a single meaning as being the ‘right’ meaning. And so the unexpressed major premise, that any particular combination of words can bear but a single 'natural and ordinary meaning' which is 'right,' survived the transfer from judge to jury of the function of adjudicating upon the meaning of words in civil actions for libel.” 4. In the circumstances it is surprising – it might even be thought gratifying - that neither of the very experienced leading counsel appearing in the present appeal could recollect a case in which a judge had had difficulty in directing a jury in accordance with the single meaning rule, or in which a jury had evinced difficulty in applying it.” “the argument between lawyers as to the meaning of words starts with the unexpressed major premise that any particular combination of words has one meaning which is not necessarily the same as that intended by him who published them or understood by any of those who read them but is capable of ascertainment as being the 'right' meaning by the adjudicator to whom the law confides the responsibility of determining it”. “Where, as in the present case, words are published to the millions of readers of a popular newspaper, the chances are that if the words are reasonably capable of being understood as bearing more than one meaning, some readers will have understood them as bearing one of those meanings and some will have understood them as bearing others of those meanings. But none of this matters. What does matter is what the adjudicator at the trial thinks is the one and only meaning that the readers as reasonable men should have collectively understood the words to bear. That is 'the natural and ordinary meaning' of words in an action for libel”. “Juries, in theory, must be unanimous upon every issue on which they have to adjudicate; and since the damages that they award must depend upon the defamatory meaning that they attribute to the words, they must all agree upon a single meaning as being the ‘right’ meaning. And so the unexpressed major premise, that any particular combination of words can bear but a single 'natural and ordinary meaning' which is 'right,' survived the transfer from judge to jury of the function of adjudicating upon the meaning of words in civil actions for libel.”
“27. The choice we are presented with is constrained by an immovable object, the single meaning rule in libel. Nothing we decide can have any impact on this: as Diplock LJ said in Slim, it has passed beyond redemption by the courts. What we have in the first instance to decide is whether, given its presence, it ought to be equally applied to the tort of malicious falsehood. 28. …. I find much more realistic Mr Caldecott's approximation of the two torts with which we are concerned on the ground that both concern the protection of reputation, albeit one protects the reputation of persons and the other the reputation of property, typically in the form of the goodwill of a business. 29. Both also attract similar human rights considerations because both involve a value protected byECHR article 10(1) . The brief debate about the presence of a countervailing article 8 value in libel and its possible (but to my mind doubtful) replication in relation to malicious falsehood by the property right in article 1 of the First Protocol is far less relevant than the controls built into both torts by article 10(2). 30. But when all this is said, the two are not so close as to be variants of a single tort, as libel and slander might be said to be. For historical reasons they have developed with different characteristics; they make different demands on the parties; and they offer redress for different things. This is the gap across which it is sought to make the single meaning rule jump. 31. In my judgment the powerful reasons advanced by Mr Caldecott for doing this are outweighed by one dominant fact: the rule itself is anomalous, frequently otiose and, where not otiose, unjust. 32. The anomaly is very nearly common ground. With the help of counsel's scholarship we have seen how a pragmatic practice became elevated into a rule of law and has remained in place without any enduring rationale. It is frequently otiose, as counsel's own experience testifies, because in the great majority of defamation cases the choice between libel and no libel, by the time the case goes to a verdict, is an either-or choice. 33. But where it is capable of being applied, as it is in the present claim, the rule is productive of injustice. On the judge's unchallenged findings, the meanings which reasonable consumers might put on Asda's health-food packaging include both the damaging and the innocuous. Why should the law not move on to proof of malice in relation to the damaging meaning and (if malice is proved) the consequential damage without artificially pruning the facts so as to presume the very thing – a single meaning - that the judge has found not to be the case? 34. I do not accept that doing this will make trials of malicious falsehood claims unwieldy or over-complex. This is not because these claims are always tried by a judge alone: the experience of common law judges is that juries are on the whole very good at assimilating and applying sometimes complicated directions. It is because it makes the trial of the issues fairer and more realistic. Instead of (as here) denying any remedy to a claimant whose business has been injured in the eyes of some consumers on the illogical ground that it has not been injured in the eyes of others, or alternatively (and Mr Caldecott's case necessarily involves this) giving such a claimant a clear run to judgment when in the eyes of many customers the words have done it no harm, trial of plural meanings permits the damaging effect of the words to be put in perspective and both malice and (if it comes to it) damage to be more realistically gauged. 35. For these reasons I would hold that the single meaning rule is not to be imported into the tort of malicious falsehood.”
“41. The potential for injustice in the present case flows from the fact that, before discarding it as legally irrelevant, the judge made the finding he did as to meaning B. If the case were allowed to go to trial and the claimant were able to prove that such meaning was false, uttered with malice and calculated to damage it, why should it not be entitled to damages for the injury which the falsehood will have caused it? More importantly – and this is the primary remedy the claimant wants – why, if it can prove its case, should it not be entitled to have the defendant restrained by injunction from doing that which it wants to do, namely (presumably for its own commercial benefit) to continue to publish a falsehood that will continue to damage the claimant in the eyes of a substantial body of consumers? The result, however, of the application by the judge of the single meaning rule is that that body of consumers is removed from the court's radar. The court instead satisfies itself with the fiction, contrary to its own finding, that the entire consuming public will interpret the defendant's packaging as bearing a single innocuous meaning. 43. … The application of the rule can also be said to carry with it the potential for swinging the balance unfairly against one party of the other, resulting in no compensation in cases when fairness might suggest that some should be due, or in over-compensation in others. No doubt it would keep the common law tidy if the single meaning rule were also applied in malicious falsehood claims, particularly because there will be cases in which a claim might be brought either in defamation or malicious falsehood. The common law has, however, never worried about tidiness. It has always been more concerned with meeting the justice of the particular case and developing itself accordingly. If the single meaning rule did not exist, I doubt if any modern court would invent it, either for defamation or any other tort. If the resolution of the present claim has to be forced into the artificial straitjacket of that rule, it will, I consider, carry with it the potential for the production of an injustice. The court ought only to risk the suffering by the claimant of such injustice if there are compelling policy reasons why the single meaning rule, itself an anomaly, ought to prevail in malicious falsehood claims as in defamation.”
“As the issue is whether any substantial number of readers of the words complained of would understand the words complained of in the meaning(s) alleged by the Claimant, the focus moves away from the notional meaning attached by a hypothetical reader, to the actual meaning understood by real readers (or a substantial number of them). Evidence on this issue is therefore admissible.”
“thought that what the Claimant had done was (a) corrupt and (b) a breach of electoral law”
“The Claimant relies upon these publications to establish that a substantial number of readers understood the Articles to bear the meanings pleaded by the Claimant. a) Sunday Mirror (25 March 2012 ): “Cruddas was allegedly prepared to go ahead with the arrangement even though he was told the money would be from a fund in Liechtenstein that would not be eligible to make donations under electoral law.” b) David Miliband appeared on the Andrew Marr programme on the BBC on the Sunday morning (the day of publication). He said, “the idea that policy is for sale is grotesque”
“... According to The Sunday Times [Cruddas] believed that any prospective donations from the reporters would come from Liechtenstein and would be ineligible under election law.” e) The Herald (26 March 2012 ): “... With Westminster fighting to recover its reputation following the MPs’ expenses scandal, evidence of influence-peddling emerged at the weekend. Recently appointed Peter Cruddas resigned within hours of being exposed soliciting large donations in return for meetings with ministers and the chance to influence policy... He is said to have been led to believe the donations would come from Liechtenstein and would therefore be ineligible under election law. The discussion is said to have included the creation of a British subsidiary and the possibility of using UK employees to make the donation...” f) Jack Straw MP on the Today programme on Radio Four (27 March 2012 : “... there is a prima facie case for the Electoral Commission to investigate whether there has been a breach of rules, potentially a breach of the criminal law by Miss Southern and Mr Cruddas.” g) Belfast Telegraph(27 March 2012 ): “... former Tory co-treasurer was caught on film telling undercover reporters that ‘premier league’ gifts could secure meetings with ministers and influence policy... Labour will today keep up the pressure on the Prime Minister by challenging him over Mr Cruddas’s suggestion to undercover reporters from The Sunday Times that the Tories might be able to find a way around the law banning foreign donations...” h) Melanie Phillips (writing in the Western Morning News28 March 2012 ): “... it beggars belief that anyone in politics would ever again explicitly solicit party donations in return for political access and influence... [Mr Cruddas] was forced to fall upon his sword because he was bang to rights.” i) Radio Four You and Yours (27 March 2012 ) caller in to the programme, Carol: “...the lobbying, which seems to me to give so many opportunities for corruption. And also one of your contributors said that there had been no wrongdoing in this case when in fact there had as the Tory party treasurer had offered to disguise donations that had come from outside the UK which I understand is, so it’s leading to all kinds of corrupt practices.” j) Mary Riddell in the Daily Telegraph (27 March 2012 ): “This scandal looks different. Mr Cruddas’s suggestion that policy is for sale to the highest bidder makes most political bagmen look like St Augustine...”” “Cruddas was allegedly prepared to go ahead with the arrangement even though he was told the money would be from a fund in Liechtenstein that would not be eligible to make donations under electoral law.” • David Miliband says idea that policy is for sale is 'grotesque' “ ... According to The Sunday Times, he believed that any prospective donations from the reporters - pretending to be wealth fund executives - would come from Liechtenstein and would be ineligible under election law. They are said to have discussed the creation of a British subsidiary and the possibility of using UK employees to make the donation.” “... According to The Sunday Times [Cruddas] believed that any prospective donations from the reporters would come from Liechtenstein and would be ineligible under election law.” “... With Westminster fighting to recover its reputation following the MPs’ expenses scandal, evidence of influence-peddling emerged at the weekend. Recently appointed Peter Cruddas resigned within hours of being exposed soliciting large donations in return for meetings with ministers and the chance to influence policy... He is said to have been led to believe the donations would come from Liechtenstein and would therefore be ineligible under election law. The discussion is said to have included the creation of a British subsidiary and the possibility of using UK employees to make the donation...” “... there is a prima facie case for the Electoral Commission to investigate whether there has been a breach of rules, potentially a breach of the criminal law by Miss Southern and Mr Cruddas.” “... former Tory co-treasurer was caught on film telling undercover reporters that ‘premier league’ gifts could secure meetings with ministers and influence policy... Labour will today keep up the pressure on the Prime Minister by challenging him over Mr Cruddas’s suggestion to undercover reporters from The Sunday Times that the Tories might be able to find a way around the law banning foreign donations...” “... it beggars belief that anyone in politics would ever again explicitly solicit party donations in return for political access and influence... [Mr Cruddas] was forced to fall upon his sword because he was bang to rights.” “...the lobbying, which seems to me to give so many opportunities for corruption. And also one of your contributors said that there had been no wrongdoing in this case when in fact there had as the Tory party treasurer had offered to disguise donations that had come from outside the UK which I understand is, so it’s leading to all kinds of corrupt practices.” “This scandal looks different. Mr Cruddas’s suggestion that policy is for sale to the highest bidder makes most political bagmen look like St Augustine...””
“Mr Cruddas’s claims that donations of£250,000 and more would be ‘awesome for your business’ was made despite him being told the money would be coming from a Liechtenstein-based fund. Under electoral law it is illegal to accept donations from foreign funds. Options alleged to have been discussed in the sting operation are said to have included the creation of a British subsidiary front company and also the potential use of UK employees who would act as financial conduits...” ii) A complaint by the Claimant to The Independent led to the making of a Statement in Open Court by the publishers and a donation to the Claimant’s charity. In the statement, The Independent acknowledged that its articles had, “followed what had been published by the Sunday Times.” iii) Then on9 November 2012 , the First and Second Defendants nominated themselves for Private Eye’s Paul Foot Award. Together with their nomination form, they sent full copies of the Articles. The accompanying précis included the following: “... [Cruddas] boasted that it would be “awesome” for the reporters’ business. What’s more, he made the offer even though the reporters would be making the donation from a Liechtenstein fund which was not eligible to finance a political party under UK electoral law...” iv) In consequence, Private Eye reported the First and Second Defendants’ nomination. In their summary of the Articles, Private Eye described the allegations against the Claimant in the following terms: “Going undercover, Calvert and Blake filmed Tory co-treasurer Peter Cruddas offering secret meetings with David Cameron and other cabinet ministers in return for ‘premier league’ donations of up to£250,000 . He was even prepared to receive a donation illegally from a Liechtenstein fund...””
“However innocent an impression of the plaintiff's character or conduct the publisher of the words intended to communicate, it does not matter if, in the opinion of the adjudicator upon the meaning of words, they did bear a defamatory meaning. This would be rational enough if the purpose of the law of libel were to afford compensation to the citizen for the unjustifiable injury to his reputation actually caused by the publication of the words to those to whom they were communicated. But although in assessing damages the courts now accept this as the purpose of the civil action … , we refuse to accept its logical corollary that the relevant question in determining liability for libel is: "What did those to whom the words were published actually understand them to mean?" The best evidence of that would be the evidence of the persons to whom the words were actually published. Yet, save in exceptional cases where a "legal" innuendo is relied on, it is not even permitted to ask a witness to whom the words were published: "What did you understand them to mean?" What he did actually understand them to mean does not matter. This too might be rationalised on the ground that the publisher of the words ought to be responsible in law only for the injury caused to the plaintiff's reputation by those defamatory inferences which a reasonable man might draw from the words published, and the witness to whom the words were published may not have been reasonable in drawing the defamatory inferences which he in fact drew. But this rationalisation breaks down once it is conceded, as it has been by the House of Lords in Lewis v. Daily Telegraph that one man might be reasonable in drawing one defamatory inference from the words and another man might be reasonable in drawing another defamatory inference.”
“Admitting evidence of the readers of the words would greatly lengthen and complicate proceedings. In particular, any mass media publication on a matter of public interest is likely to be followed by all sorts of republication, reaction and comment, as well as further investigations and publications by third parties. All of this materially would have to be looked at on the issue of meaning if C were right. (5) Taking the step advocated by C would involve a further divergence from the position in libel (despite there being “powerful” arguments against even taking the first step of jettisoning the single meaning rule: see Ajinomoto above), with particular potential to complicate matters in cases where libel and malicious falsehood are pleaded in tandem. (6) Points (4) and (5) above raise serious issues as to compatibility withArticle 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights . It is well established that the cost of and complication of dealing with a case may amount to a disproportionate infringement of Article 10(1). Publications on public interest matters routinely spark extensive further debate: that is part of their value. There would be a significant chilling effect if the original publisher not only had to answer for their own words but also had to address, in the course of defending liability, how subsequent publishers had understood the original publication (whether by reference to calling the publishers of, or by seeking to build a case based on an interpretation of the precise meanings of, what may be a large number of subsequent publications). It is no answer to say that such material would have to be looked at on damages in any event: the court can control material relating to damages on case management grounds in a way that it cannot on questions of liability: see e.g. Clarke v Bain [2008] EWHC[2008] EWHC 2636 at [54]-[61]. (7) Similarly, the court ought to be concerned with the increase in costs to the court and the parties of reviewing potentially large amounts of evidence which, ultimately, do not determine the issue the court has to decide. (8) C’s concerns about any potential infringement of Article 8 are not to the point. If there were to be any concern about article 8 (or, in the context of a malicious falsehood claim, perhaps more pertinently Protocol article 1) raised by the single meaning rule, then it is addressed by the abandonment of that rule in malicious falsehood (Ajinomoto) and the move to a position where variant meanings conveyed to reasonable readers are taken into account. Article 8 and the protocol cannot possibly be relied upon to mandate a rule of evidence in domestic law, where the substantive law is compliant.”