“So that members are well-briefed a document, giving more details, will be available outlining the proposition and the results of some feasibility work already undertaken, will be circulated by the Management Committee in advance of the meeting. Please study the document carefully because at the meeting, as well as listening to your views, the management will be seeking approval for the following motion: Regarding this proposition the meeting notes the results of the feasibility study and agrees that negotiations should proceed, firstly to agree Heads of Terms and then, if practicable, to negotiate suitable terms for the sale of Newlands and the purchase of the proposed new site, secure in the knowledge that a further SGM of the membership will be held before the Trustees are required to sign contract(s) on behalf of the membership.”
“to provide information on News and events of what is taking place within your community”
“LUTON RFC “WANTS TO MOVE INTO CADDINGTON VILLAGE” “WHAT IS GOING ON WITH THIS CLUB”? Has the members of Luton RFC been misled by their club management committee by what they have put into this important document they put out to their members. Read the document and judge for yourself. “IMPORTANT NOTICE FROM THE LUTON RUGBY FOOTBALL CLUB MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE TO THEIR MEMBERS”
“12. The project is clearly not without risk. Therefore it is important that throughout the roject [sic] effective action is taken to identify and manage that risk. Obtaining”
“In spite of his threats, I was nevertheless willing to speak to the claimant. I wanted the opportunity to question him about the proposed developments and the “Important Notice.”
“I did not see sight of that document. It had gone out and the first time I got told about it was when somebody said that the local gentleman has got something on his local blog and that’s when I read it.” (2) That the Notice was wrong to suggest that he had an understanding with local planners; he had no such understanding. His words were: “We haven’t … spoken to anybody from Luton or Central Beds … I wouldn’t dream of being so arrogant or cheeky by saying it’s a done deal… I’ve never said that in my life because it’s not a done deal … I didn’t say that. I have met nobody from Caddington and Slip End Parish Council, I’ve met nobody from Luton Council and I’ve met nobody from Central Beds”. (3) That the Notice was wrong to suggest that any surplus land would have development potential. Mr Doyle’s words were: “If there’s land left over we will be using that for landscaping. … The first person who will decide where things are going is me and … The thing they put in about the development, somebody has got excited again because, you know, that’s not something that I entertain.” (4) That Mr Doyle was not responsible for any errors or inaccuracies in the Notice, which had been inappropriate in his view. His words were: “a false document that is nothing to do with me and it wasn’t the correct way to go forward.”
“So, what I asked the Rugby Club to do is basically don’t make a comment, we need to get you through this process of - ‘cause I said it’s been very transparent - of getting the votes to move and accept the Heads of Terms. And then from there, I said that’s when we start and it starts with me and, as I said, the Chairman of DLP meeting Central Beds, meeting Luton and meeting and … they might just say, “You deal with Caddington””. (2) Towards the end of the conversation, Mr Smith expressly stated that he did not doubt Mr Doyle’s denial of any understanding with the planners (“I’ve no doubt what you’re saying, it’s just that the Rugby Club said you had and they put it in writing…”) He suggested that Mr Doyle should go to the Club and complain of them putting him in an embarrassing situation by issuing a document which had gone out on the News “and none of it is true.”
“Stephen Doyle – Director of Templeview Development Limited”. (2) He added these words: “A FURTHER IMPORTANT DEVELOPMENT IN THIS STORY WILL BE MADE AVAILABLE IN THE NEAR FUTURE … Further information has come to light that will be published in July then you will be able to see for yourself if there has been anyone who has been misleading the club or the club is misleading their members, From the evidence I have it will show someone is given misleading information.”
“[1] "The£10 million fraud". [2] Stephen Doyle accuses Luton RFC of sending false documentation to Members [3] In a bizarre twist to the Luton Rugby Club saga the man behind the proposed move, Mr Stephen Doyle of Templeview Development Ltd has contacted The Caddington Village News and accused the Club of misleading Members. [4] Mr Doyle didn't hold nothing back and said that the situation was embarrassing and the Rugby Club were getting all excited about putting stuff in they weren't allowed to do. [5] Most controversial of all Mr Doyle confirmed that he had read the false documentation before it went to the Members but that he asked the Rugby Club not to make a comment due to getting votes (for approval to move from Newlands Road to Caddington) and accepting Heads of Terms. [6] The Caddington Village News has looked into the legal ownership of the land and can confirm that the Members own it and it is reportedly valued at£10 million ! This is like a lottery win and Mr Doyle has clearly alleged that the Rugby Club deceived the Members before the vote and that he knew about it. [7] There are so many more questions left unanswered- who is Mr Doyle’s contact al the Club, who put the false document together, who is in charge of the money... I let readers come to their own conclusions about if there was a possible "£10 million fraud" but be assured the Caddington Village News will keep you updated and continue investigating.”
“that the Claimant knew that documentation which was intended for circulation to members of the Club was false and misleading but had asked that it should not be corrected, in order to deceive the members of the Club into voting to approve the sale of land worth£10 million as part of a move which the Claimant was behind, and was accordingly guilty of concerted dishonesty and involved in perpetrating or attempting to perpetrate a fraud of up to£10 million ”
“Jeynes principle (6) means that the nature of the publication or medium can also affect the characteristics which the court attributes to the ordinary reader. But it is necessary to be a little cautious about this aspect of the matter, because it can involve an invitation to act on preconceptions that are unsupported by evidence. Special characteristics should only be taken into account if they are matters of common knowledge, agreed, or proved: McAlpine [58], Simpson v MGN Ltd[2015] EWHC 77 (QB) [10].”
“matters relating to the public life of the community and those who take part in it, including … activities such as the conduct of government and political life, elections and public administration … [and] more widely … the governance of public bodies, institutions and companies which give rise to a public interest in disclosure, but excluding matters which are personal and private, such that there is no public interest in their disclosure.”
“(1) It is not enough for the statement complained of to be, or to be part of, a publication on a matter of public interest. It must also be shown that the defendant reasonably believed that publication of the particular statement was in the public interest.” (2) To satisfy this second requirement, which I shall call “the Reasonable Belief requirement”, the defendant must (a) prove as a fact that he believed that publishing the statement complained of was in the public interest, and (b) persuade the court that this was a reasonable belief. (3) The reasonable belief must be held at the time of publication. (4) The “circumstances” to be considered pursuant to s 4(2) are those that go to whether or not the belief was held, and whether or not it was reasonable. (5) The focus must therefore be on things the defendant said or knew or did, or failed to do, up to the time of publication. Events that happened later, or which were unknown to the defendant at the time he played his role in the publication, are unlikely to have any or any significant bearing on the key questions. (6) The truth or falsity of the allegation complained of is not one of the relevant circumstances. (7) It is not only those who edit media publications who are entitled to the benefit of the allowance for “editorial judgment” which s 4(4) requires (see paragraph 33 of the Explanatory Notes).”
“153. What s 4(1)(b) requires is a belief that the publication of “the statement” is in the public interest, which must refer to the words complained of, rather than the defamatory imputation which those words convey. That is consistent with the wording of the statute, which uses the term “imputation” to refer to the meaning of a statement.”
“Most controversially of all Mr Doyle confirmed that he had read the false documentation before it went to the Members ...”
“…. It goes without saying that a journalist is entitled and bound to reach his own conclusions and to express them honestly and fearlessly. He is entitled to disbelieve and refute explanations given. But this cannot be a good reason for omitting, from a hardhitting article making serious allegations against a named individual, all mention of that person’s own explanation. … An article omitting all reference to this statement could not be a fair and accurate report of proceedings in the Dail. Such an article would be misleading as a report. This article is not defended as a report, but it was misleading nonetheless. By omitting Mr Reynolds’s explanation English readers were left to suppose that, so far, Mr Reynolds had offered no explanation. Further, it is elementary fairness that, in the normal course, a serious charge should be accompanied by the gist of any explanation already given. … these serious allegations by the newspaper, presented as statements of fact but shorn of all mention of Mr Reynolds’s considered explanation, were not information the public had a right to know.”
“There is no human right to disseminate information that is not true. No public interest is served by publishing or communicating misinformation. The working of a democratic society depends on the members of that society, being informed not misinformed. Misleading people and the purveying as facts of statements which are not true is destructive of the democratic society and should form no part of such a society. There is no duty to publish what is not true: there is no interest in being misinformed.”
“… a belief [will] be reasonable for the purposes of s 4 only if it is one arrived at after conducting such enquiries and checks as it is reasonable to expect of the particular defendant in all the circumstances of the case. Among the circumstances relevant to the question of what enquiries and checks are needed, the subject-matter needs consideration, as do the particular words used, the range of meanings the defendant ought reasonably to have considered they might convey, and the particular role of the defendant in question.”
“124 It has been argued in many cases over many years that the standard of care should be adjusted to take account of the personal characteristics of the particular defendant. So, for example, in Salmon LJ's celebrated dissenting judgment in Nettleship v Weston[1971] 2 QB 691 , he would have held that a learner driver's acts should be judged by the standard of a reasonable learner driver rather than a reasonable person generally. But this view has never prevailed (see Lord Macmillan in Glasgow Corpn v Muir[1943] AC 448 , 457), except in one respect: the standard of care applicable to the liability of children for negligence is established to be that of the ordinary, prudent and reasonable child of the defendant's age, not that of the ordinary, prudent and reasonable person generally: see McHale v Watson(1966) 115 CLR 199 in the High Court of Australia, followed in Mullin v Richards[1998] 1 WLR 1304 . … 130 … is there some principle that requires the law to excuse from liability in negligence a defendant who fails to meet the normal standard of care partly because of a medical problem. In my judgment, there is and should be no such principle. The courts have consistently and correctly rejected the notion that the standard of care should be adjusted to take account of personal characteristics of the defendant. The single exception in respect of the liability of children should not, I think, be extended. … ”
“if it don't smell right, it ain't right.”
“[1] The Caddington Village News has further looked into the Stephen Doyle proposal to move Luton Rugby Football Club into Caddington and by doing so has unravelled a very serious set of potential illegal events. It can now be confirmed that Stephen Doyle has been arrested on the allegation of blackmail and malicious communication with menace. Whist the police are carrying out this investigation the Caddington Village News intention is not to make any further comment on this matter. [2] However Mr Doyle has made an allegation that the Rugby Club has knowingly put forward a false document to Members to get votes and agree Heads of Terms to move the Club from Luton into Caddington The Caddington Village News has investigated this matter further and already believes that Mr Doyle 's accusation can be substantiated and that the document is false.” [3] Even more concerning is the possible relationship between Mr Doyle and Mr Butten. There has to be one because on 07 04 2011 Templeview Developments bought land off the Rugby Club when an option was held by MC Nominees, (ie Butten so he must have been involved in this deal because he would have to have legally reassigned the land to Doyle. [4] With the Rugby Club land valued at£10 million the Clubs statement that the proposed sale should be with Stephen Doyle alone, this raises serious questions why the Club deceived members and have withheld information, and whether this was an unsolicited proposal as stated.”
“Patrick, I think you said on line that Stephen Doyle had been arrested? Was that not accurate?”
“I told the police that Doyle was a Pinocchio.”
“46 …. [F]irst … “Serious” is an ordinary word in common usage. Section 1requires the claimant to prove as a fact, on the balance of probabilities, that the statement complained of has caused or will probably cause serious harm to the claimant’s reputation … 47. Secondly, it is open to the claimant to call evidence in support of his case on serious harm and it is open to the defendant to call evidence to demonstrate that no serious harm has occurred or is likely to do so. However, a Court determining the issue of serious harm is, as in all cases, entitled to draw inferences based on the admitted evidence. Mass media publications of very serious defamatory allegations are likely to render the need for evidence of serious harm unnecessary. This does not mean that the issue of serious harm is a “numbers game”
“I have reached the clear conclusion that the Serious Harm requirement is satisfied, on the straightforward basis that the tweets complained of have a tendency to cause harm to this claimant's reputation in the eyes of third parties, of a kind that would be serious for her.”
“72. ….serious reputational harm is capable of being proved by a process of inference from the seriousness of the defamatory meaning … there is no reason in libel cases for precluding or restricting the drawing of an inference of serious reputational harm derived from an (objective) appraisal of the seriousness of the imputation to be gathered from the words used. 73. … The seriousness of the reputational harm is … evaluated having regard to the seriousness of the imputation conveyed by the words used: coupled, where necessary or appropriate, with the context in which the words are used (for example, in a newspaper article or widely accessed blog).”
“There may, for instance, be cases where the evidence shows that no serious reputational harm has been caused or is likely for reasons unrelated to the meaning conveyed by the defamatory statement complained of. One example could, for instance, perhaps be where the defendant considers that he has irrefutable evidence that the number of publishees was very limited, that there has been no grapevine percolation and that there is firm evidence that no one thought any the less of the claimant by reason of the publication.”
“Everybody in the Club knew about it. Everyone was talking about it”. iii) Most if not all of the people would either have known that the arrest allegation was untrue or would have had very significant doubts as to whether it was credible. I do not consider that this submission has a sound basis in the evidence or common sense. I would accept that some of those closest to Mr Doyle, for instance his wife, would have known the allegation was untrue. But why should other readers doubt the story, presented as fact? There is little evidence about who knew what in fact had happened as a result of Mr Smith’s report to the police. Mr Doyle has not given evidence that he spread the news of his interview under caution, and there is no reason to suppose he did. Knowledge that he had been interviewed would not have proved that he had not been arrested. It would rather have tended to support the view that he had. Mr James’ evidence is that when he read the article he believed it was essential to ascertain whether there was any truth in it, and therefore contacted Mr Doyle. Mr Foster’s evidence also contradicts the defence case. He says that Mr Doyle told him the article was untrue, but “Until he told me this, I thought that the Third Article was true, and that Stephen had been arrested …”
“A: I would not say I was pleased, sir. What I would say is that the articles brought out the truth. Q. Is there any part of what you did and wrote in those three articles that you regret? A. No. Nothing.”