Don't know why don't you call him to explain the error of his ways.

I'm sure he will listen to you over his practising solicitor.

Because a lawyer has never taken a case he thought he might lose just for the fat fee. No sirree...

People sue and fail all the time. Even people with ever-so-expensive lawyers. On the face of it suing a newspaper for printing what everyone at the time thought was a genuine Police report appears doomed to failure, but strange things can happen in libel cases. Either way it will further damage his public image, which he claims to be so concerned about.

No..... I think he intends to sue for reporting something that was not correct. You cannot just repeat other peoples libeleous statements and report it as fact. Great care has to be taken with the written word and unless you have proof it has to be made clear the story is only alleged.

To publish in print an untruth about someone which will do harm to that persons's reputation by tending to bring them into ridicule or contempt of others is libel. There are some quite good examples earlier in this thread.

The papers (and other media) reported the content of a leaked Police report. They were reporting facts. And so far nobody has [iproven[/i that the report in question was false. All the reports I read were also at pains to point out that Mitchell denied the allegations contained in the report.

If you can't see the difference between this and your average libel case then I guess you must be Mitchell's legal adviser.

~s~

The idea that you could sue the media for reporting, factually, what has gone one, is ludicrous, IMO. As you rightly point out.

But then it wouldn't surprise me if senior members of the government do not actually understand how law works. I recall that, just over a year ago. one Francis Maude apparently sat in a meeting with public service trade unions and suggested that the government could simply put employment legislation on hold for a month or so if convenient. He was, apparently, rather shocked when his civil servants returned to tell him that this really wasn't possible.

And this is a lawyer.

There you go then.
This being Andrew Mitchell, there was no "bringing" involved, he was already there.

Given that Mitchells nickname at public school and henceforth into his adult life was "Thrasher" because of his fondness of discipline and punishment then I'd think that the sort of things he's been accused of would only serve to enhance his hard earned and self appreciated reputation, indeed he didn't deny much of it.

But the burden of proof in defamation case defences is on the defendant so no one has to prove that the report was false. The defendant must prove it was true (on the balance of probabilities).

Bollox.

All anyone accused of libelling another has to prove is that the alleged libel did not defame the "good name" of the allegedly libelled.

If I said "Peter Sutcliffe used to w[ia[/ink dogs on Hessle Foreshore", it's highly doubtfull that any jury would decide that his character had been libelled

It's like arguing with kids.

Wiki:

"However, the common law of libel reverses the traditional positions somewhat: a defamatory statement is presumed to be false, unless the defendant can prove its truth"

I hope he does take legal action, maybe then someone might just dig out the "proper" cctv evidence which someone is with-holding from public scrutiny for their own reasons.

What do you mean unfortunately for me? It was alleged he called police plebs. If he didn't this is defamatory.



Yes, it was a fact that the police report said he used the word pleb, but it is not a fact that he actually said the word pleb.

Newspapers cannot repeat libelous staments and I don't really understand why you are making out that someone suing newspapers is a revolutionary step.