“F1 Boss has sick Nazi orgy with 5 hookers”
“Published by Max Mosley, 113 Upper Lloyd Street, Manchester 14…”
“Why you should Vote Hesketh… on Tuesday, November 7th, 1961” and contained the following text: “PROTECT YOUR JOBS Coloured immigrants are forming a large pool of unemployed. They will be used to lower your living standards. PROTECT YOUR HOMES Britain is suffering from an acute housing shortage. Coloured immigrants come into Britain faster than we can build new homes. PROTECT YOUR HEALTH There is no medical check on immigration. Tuberculosis, V.D. and other terrible diseases like leprosy are on the increase. Coloured immigration threatens your children’s health. PROTECT YOUR FAMILY This man [pictured] is telephoning his wife to say that he would like to ‘digest’ is (sic) a good British dinner in a good British home. Remember that Mr Taylor, the Conservative candidate, said you would have to ‘digest’ the coloured immigrants who are here already, and then ‘digest’ some more (Times 12-10-61), and the other candidates are every bit as bad. To stop coloured immigration VOTE HESKETH…”
“Dear Friends, Do you want a change? Or are you perfectly content with the things as they are… Every vote for me is a real protest against what is now happening. My return to Parliament would be for the old parties an earthquake. A heavy vote for me would oblige them to take action and do the things you want done. No government can ignore the will of the people. Every vote for me is an expression of your will. It is a chance to tell the Government: wake up, get on or get out. What do we want done? Surely we want something done about housing and about coloured immigration. These are the real issues of this election. Do you want to live in the present bad houses for ever? Do you want more and more coloured immigrants coming in? The old parties have been telling you all your lives that they will build you better homes, but they have not done it yet. But how many things have they ‘considered’, and for how long without anything happening? You know the results as well as I do. You know your only chance to stop the coloured immigrants coming in is to wake up the Government. And you know your only way to do that is to vote for me. Even now they tell you they will let in any immigrants who show they have jobs to come to, or private means to keep themselves. But don’t you know these bits of paper can be produced at any time by the racketeers who bring them in here? And the jobs they will come to are the jobs you will soon be wanting, if depression comes again and the means they bring with them will be the means to buy up the houses you want to live in. Surely by now you know what a racket the whole business of this coloured immigration is. So you will give a vote which will stop it. If enough people vote for me in this election, the Government simply cannot go on with this policy. They will be sending coloured immigrants home, instead of bringing more in. For they must obey the will of the people expressed in this election. I am as much against persecution as any of you. I am just like the rest of you who live here in Moss Side. I want to do things in a fair and decent British way. Let us give the coloured people a fair deal by sending them back to good jobs and good wages at home in Jamaica in the way our policy suggests. But let us give our own people a fair deal first. After all, the father of a family puts his own children first. Why should not our Government put our own people first? And we can do it without hurting other people, in the way described on the opposite page in our constructive policy. It is all part of a great policy which can be for the good of all. You may or may not agree with all of it. That does not matter. What you can say to the Government by voting for me at this election is this: here is a way to do some of the things we want done, either do it, or think of a better way of doing it for yourselves. But we are not sitting here in bad houses which are getting worse, while more and more coloured immigrants come in and take our homes today and our jobs tomorrow. If you vote for me you say to the Government; wake up! And I promise to keep them awake. That is what we in Moss Side want, and that is why I am asking for your votes in this election.”
“Under oath at the High Court, Mr Mosley, who had been suing the News of the World for reporting his participation in what the newspaper alleged was a ‘Nazi-themed’ orgy, categorically denied such a leaflet existed. But the Mail has tracked down the hateful pamphlet in a historical archive. It states: ‘Published by Max Mosley’… Asked about the leaflet at the High Court in 2008, he initially said, ‘If there was such a leaflet, you would be able to produce it.’ He said he could not recall the leaflet and then said it was ‘absolute nonsense’ to suggest that such a pamphlet was put out.”
“In a compelling interview on Channel 4 News last night, a blustering Max Mosley admitted the bombshell election pamphlet uncovered by the Amil was racist. He told host Cathy Newman ‘Yeah… I think that probably is racist. I’ll concede that.’ An unflappable Miss Newman, one of TV’s most respected interviewers, had put a series of incisive questions to the tycoon. Yet he protested it was ‘nonsense’ to say he should apologies and ‘stupid and offensive’ to suggest he hadn’t told the truth in his 2008 High Court case. At one point he even suggested the leaflet was a hoax, then conceded it might be genuine, but denied it was racist, before finally admitting it was racist. The Mail shared its Mosley dossier with Channel 4 News and reporter Michael Crick retraced our steps to find the original leaflet in a Salford archive…”
“It is difficult to understand the failure of Mr Mosley, who even his critics say has a brilliant legal mind, to recollect his publishing one of the most racist pieces of parliamentary election literature produced in post-war Britain. If he did lie, he would have been committing perjury – an offence which is punishable by a prison sentence of up to seven years. It is difficult to calculate the affect his memory lapse had on the outcome of his landmark orgy privacy trial in which Mr Justice Eady awarded Mr Mosley£60,000 damages. If the defence had been able to produce that devastating pamphlet, would it have damaged the credibility of both Mr Mosley’s testimony and his integrity?...”
“The Mail have already indicated to us that they want a statement on their ‘dossier’. I would propose the following as a statement from a CPS spokesperson: ‘I can confirm that information was received from the Mail and has been passed to the Metropolitan Police’. If there are any objections to that, please let me know.”
“Police are examining whether Max Mosley committed perjury after a Mail investigation exposed his racist past. A detailed dossier including a bigoted election pamphlet published by the tycoon is being assessed by Scotland Yard. The leaflet raises the question of whether he lied at his orgy privacy trial. The ex-Formula One chief, who is refusing to apologise for the document, was yesterday dumped as a Labour Party donor… Yesterday, the Mail handed a dossier to the Crown Prosecution Service. It included a transcript of Mr Mosley’s evidence to the High Court in which he denied the existence of the racist leaflet, and a legally certified copy of the leaflet – which Mr Mosley had tried to suggest might be a fake. The CPS immediately referred the case to the police, and last night Scotland Yard said: ‘This afternoon the CPS forwarded information from the Daily Mail to the Met Police. An assessment will be carried out. Detectives will decide on launching a full-scale investigation into whether offences were committed. Should such a probe be instigated, then it is likely that Mr Mosley would be interviewed by police.”
“How justice caught up with two infamous perjurers” – which recounted the cases of Jeffrey Archer and Jonathan Aiken – and “Perjury law in the United Kingdom”
“(1) If any person lawfully sworn as a witness… in a judicial proceeding wilfully makes a statement material in that proceeding, which he knows to be false or does not believe to be true, he shall be guilty of perjury, and shall, on conviction thereof on indictment, be liable to penal servitude for a term not exceeding seven years, or to imprisonment… for a term not exceeding two years, or to a fine or to both such penal servitude or imprisonment and fine. (2) The expression “judicial proceeding” includes a proceeding before any court, tribunal, or person having by law power to hear, receive, and examine evidence on oath… (6) The question whether a statement on which perjury is assigned was material is a question of law to be determined by the court of trial.”
“I can confirm it is our intention to send to the MPS more material illustrating Mr Mosley’s considerable involvement in the Union Movement and his far-right activities. We will endeavour to do this in the next few days, giving your officers important context in which to consider matters.”
“When considering allegations of perjury, the alleged false statement must be ‘material to the proceedings’. To prove an offence of perjury it must also be shown that the specific statement was made knowing it to be false or not believing it to be true. Our assessment included a review of the evidence provided during the 2008 court proceedings and liaison with the Crown Prosecution Service. The CPS Charging Standard guidance explains that to bring proceedings for perjury, the evidence is expected to be ‘exceptionally strong’. Early investigative advice obtained from the CPS is that these standards are not met here.”
“Having read through the updates and consider the initial Early Investigative Advice again I am satisfied that no further information has been provided to change the rationale for closing this matter, i.e. 1. The evidence regarding the pamphlet was not material to the defamation proceedings (sic) 2. Due to the length of time passed between the issue of the pamphlet and the proceedings (47 years) it is not possible to show that Mr Mosley made a false statement knowingly… Due to these evidential difficulties which are laid out at length… a criminal investigation is not met and this assessment can now be closed.”
“Your newspaper maintained a constant refrain that our client was under suspicion of having perjured himself. You repeatedly published insinuations to the effect that the criminal law had been set in motion against him as the result of evidence he had given during his successful claim against the News of the World; and you obviously did this with a view to doing him and his reputation as much harm as you could via the pages of a newspaper; and put as much pressure as you could on the CPS and MPS to treat your dossier seriously.”
“38. It is averred that the Defendant’s editors took legal advice regarding whether the Claimant could be accused of having committed the crime of perjury; and that after taking such advice, the Defendant chose language used in the MailOnline and the Daily Mail’s article [the First Article] with a view to avoiding libelling the Claimant. … 45. In the premises: (1) The Defendant sent its ‘dossier’ to the CPS with a view to being able to report in its publication that the CPS/the MPS were investigating the Claimant; (2) In its publications, the Defendant linked the Claimant with infamous perjurers; and (3) In its publications, the Defendant gave an explanation of the law of perjury which was materially misleading and gave the impression that the crime of perjury could be committed merely by deliberately making a false statement in court, regardless of the relevance of the statement to the decision-maker’s deliberations. … 52. In sending to the CPS its email dated28 February 2018 inviting the CPS to consider whether the Claimant had committed ‘any criminal offences’… the Defendant intended to and did set the processes of law in motion: (1) As was intended by the Defendant, the CPS followed its procedures for considering whether the Claimant might be guilty of perjury; (2) The CPS then caused the MPS to devote resources to considering whether there might be evidence to justify sending a file back to the CPS to consider whether a prosecution should be brought against the Claimant; (3) The MPS considered the evidence, all of which had been provided by the Defendant; and (4) The Defendant acted as aforesaid in order to smear the Claimant and cause harm to him. 53. Further and alternatively, the Defendant’s aim in sending the said email to the CPS was to be able to report in its various publications that the processes of the law had been set in motion against the Claimant and that he was now the subject of a potential prosecution for perjury. Determination in the Claimant’s favour 54. On or around2 July 2018 , the MPS informed the Defendant that it would take no further action in respect of the Defendant’s allegations against the Claimant. 55. Accordingly, the legal process the Defendant had set in motion was determined in the Claimant’s favour: the MPS very quickly appreciated that the complaint made disclosed absolutely no offence that could reasonably be charged against the Claimant. Absence of reasonable and probable cause 56. The Defendant’s editorial team was at all material times supported by lawyers (both in-house and external) retained to advise on, among other things, whether articles which the Defendant intended to publish might expose it to defamation actions. 57. No competent lawyer advising the Defendant in advance of the publication of the [First Article] would have been unaware of the constituent elements of the crime of perjury, namely a person will be guilty of that crime only if: (1) He was lawfully sworn as a witness in judicial proceedings; and (2) He wilfully made a statement in those proceedings which he knew to be false or did not believe to be true; and (3) That the statement was material to the proceedings. 58. No competent lawyer could have concluded that it was even arguable that any statement made by the Claimant regarding the leaflet was material to the Privacy Action. 59. Further and alternatively, no competent lawyer could have concluded that there was any prospect of a court ever accepting that any statement made by the Claimant about the leaflet during the trial of the Privacy Action was one which he knew to be false or did not believe to be true. 60. The Claimant will say at trial that it is to be inferred from the wording of the [First Article] that the Defendant was advised that there was no reasonable basis for alleging that the Claimant had perjured himself and that the only non-defamatory statement that could be made regarding the leaflet was that it ‘raised the question’ whether the crime of perjury had been committed; the answer to which questions need not be articulated by the Defendant even though it knew that the elements of the crime of perjury were not present. 61. Accordingly, when the Defendant submitted the dossier to the CPS it knew that there was no possible ground on which the Claimant would ever be charged, let alone convicted. 62. In the premises, the Defendant did not have reasonable and probable cause for submitting its allegations to the CPS: it knew that no crime had been committed. [The Claimant’s case on malice was set out in paragraphs 63-65] Loss and Damage 66. As a result of the Defendant’s wrongful actions as aforesaid, the Claimant has suffered loss and damage: PARTICULARS (1) Serious and significant reputational damage. (a) The judgment in the Claimant’s favour following the trial of the Privacy Action constituted an important vindication of the Claimant’s rights and reputation. The referral of the ‘dossier’ to the CPS and subsequent reporting tainted the value of that judgment by the implication that it had been procured by perjured evidence by the Claimant; (b) The Defendant’s reporting of its actions in setting the law in motion created the unjust impression that there were reasonable grounds to suspect that the Claimant was guilty of criminal wrongdoing. (2) Serious and significant distress and anxiety. The Claimant has sought for years to have a private life that is private to him. The Defendant’s campaigns seeking to humiliate him by constant taunting cause him distress; the allegation that even his total vindication in the Privacy Action might be treated as the product of his committing the crime of perjury caused further distress. 67. The Claimant seeks exemplary damages on the basis that: (1) The Defendant deliberately and knowingly set the law in motion against the Claimant without reasonable and probable cause and maliciously; (2) The Defendant sought thereby to obtain its goal of damaging the Claimant’s reputation and harming him without libelling him, buy the simple method of passing a dossier containing no evidence of any crime to the CPS and then reporting that the CPS were investigating whether a crime had been committed.”
“the widespread reporting that he was officially suspected of having committed perjury, with the consequent undermining of the vindication of his reputation obtained at the News of the World trial, damaged his reputation and caused him serious and significant distress and anxiety.”
“In an action for malicious prosecution the claimant must show first that he was prosecuted by the defendant, that is to say, that the law was set in motion against him by the defendant on a criminal charge or, now, via civil proceedings; secondly, that the prosecution was determined in his favour; thirdly, that it was without reasonable and probable cause; and fourthly, that it was malicious. The onus of proving every one of these is on the claimant.”
“The law allows every person to employ its process for the purpose of trying his rights, without subjecting him to any liability, unless he acts maliciously and without probable cause.” [28] In Churchill -v- Siggers 3 E & B 929, 937 the judgment of the court (Lord Campbell CJ, Erle J and Crompton J) began: “To put into force the process of the law maliciously and without any reasonable or probable cause is wrongful; and, if thereby another is prejudiced in property or person, there is that conjunction of injury and loss which is the foundation of an action on the case.”
“… there are legal proceedings which do necessarily and naturally involve that damage; and when proceedings of that kind have been taken falsely and maliciously, and without reasonable or probable cause, then, inasmuch as an injury has been done, the law gives a remedy. Such proceedings are indictments – I do not say every indictment, but I mean all indictments involving either scandal to reputation or the possible loss of liberty to the person, that is, all ordinary indictments for ordinary offences. In its very nature the presentation or the prosecution of an indictment involves damage, which cannot be afterwards repaired by the failure of the proceedings, to the fair fame of the person assailed, and for that reason, as it seems to me, the law considers that to present and prosecute an indictment falsely and without reasonable or probable cause, is a foundation for a subsequent action for a malicious prosecution.”
“The action for damages for malicious prosecution is part of the common law of England, administered by the High Court at Calcutta under its letters patent. The foundation of the action lies in abuse of the process of the court by wrongfully setting the law in motion, and it is designed to discourage the perversion of the machinery of justice for an improper purpose. The plaintiff must prove that the proceedings instituted against him were malicious, without reasonable and probable cause, that they terminated in his favour (if that be possible), and that he has suffered damage. As long ago as 1698 it was held by Holt CJ in Savile -v- Roberts (1698) 1 Ld. Raym 374 that damages might be claimed in an action under three heads, (1) damage to the person, (2) damage to property, and (3) damage to reputation, and that rule has prevailed ever since. That the word ‘prosecution’ in the title of the action is not used in the technical sense which it bears in criminal law is shown by the fact that the action lies for the malicious prosecution of certain classes of civil proceedings, for instance, falsely and maliciously presenting a petition in bankruptcy or a petition to wind up a company (Quartz Hill Consolidated Gold Mining Co. -v- Eyre)… From this consideration of the nature of an action for damages for malicious prosecution emerges the answer to the problem before the Board. To found an action for damages for malicious prosecution based on criminal proceedings the test is not whether the criminal proceedings have reached a stage at which they may be correctly described as a prosecution; the test is whether such proceedingshave reached a stage at which damage to the plaintiff results. Their Lordships arenot prepared to go as far as some of the courts in India in saying that the merepresentation of a false complaint which first seeks to set the criminal law in motionwill per se found an action for damages for malicious prosecution. If the magistratedismisses the complaint as disclosing no offence with which he can deal, it maywell be that there has been nothing but an unsuccessful attempt to set the criminallaw in motion, and no damage to the plaintiff results. But in this case the magistrate took cognizance of the complaint, examined the complainant on oath, held an inquiry in open court under s. 202 which the plaintiff attended, and at which, as the learned judge has found, he incurred costs in defending himself. The plaint alleged the institution of criminal proceedings of a character necessarily involving damage to reputation and gave particulars of special damage alleged to have been suffered by the plaintiff. Their Lordships think that the action was well founded, and on the findings at the trial the plaintiff is entitled to judgment.”
“In Amin the complaint was dismissed by the magistrate, and no prosecution followed the making of the complaint. It is true that the magistrate made an inquiry under s.202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, but the result of that was the dismissal of the complaint. No process was ever issued to bring the accused before the magistrate. I think it is important to read the passage from the Privy Council, just quoted, together with the sentence which immediately follows it: ‘If the magistrate dismisses the complaint as disclosing no offence with which he can deal, it may well be that there has been nothing but an unsuccessful attempt to set the criminal law in motion and no damage to the plaintiff results.’ (The italics are mine) Read together, they would appear to mean that the mere presentation of a false complaint will not necessarily be a basis for suit for malicious prosecution, but that, if a complaint is made disclosing an offence with which the magistrate has jurisdiction to deal and he takes cognizance of it, that is sufficient foundation for the action.”
“… the very touchstone of this point is that the petition to wind up is by force of law made public before the company can defend itself against the imputations made against it; for the petitioner is bound to publicly advertise the petition seven days before it is to be heard and adjudicated upon… under theCompanies Act 1862 …”
“… the paradox is that nowadays, at any rate in England & Wales, there is much less chance of being a victim of a criminal prosecution brought maliciously and without reasonable cause than of a civil action so brought…”
“… requires something more than merely making a complaint or report which suggests that an offence has been committed… Invoking the power of the state against the claimant is central to the tort of malicious prosecution and requires a positive desire and intention to procure a prosecution. In effect, it must be the defendant’s purpose to bring about a prosecution and that purpose must betranslated into actions which are effective in bringing about proceedings…”