Krause v Associated Newspapers Ltd
2014
QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION
United Kingdom
CORAM
- THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE TUGENDHAT
Areas of Law
- Tort Law
- Civil Procedure
- Criminal Law and Procedure
2014
QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION
United Kingdom
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The Claimant, previously convicted of harassment, sued Mail Online for a libelous article alleging she evaded community service due to the heaviness of a lawnmower. The court found the article inaccurate but not defamatory, emphasizing that inaccuracies and references to gender do not constitute legal action. The court dismissed additional complaints about the article's depiction of her honesty, ruling further amendments futile. The judge concurred with dismissing the action and reaffirmed the principles that inaccurate reporting alone does not establish defamation and that expressions about gender based on truth are not defamatory.
Judgment
Mr Justice Tugendhat :
The Defendant applies to strike out this libel action, or for alternative orders. The Defendant is the publisher of Mail Online. The action was commenced by a claim form issued on 23 May 2013 in respect of a publication online made on 23 May 2012 under the title “Transsexual let off community service by judge after complaining she can’t push heavy lawnmower”. It was taken down (without admission of liability) on 26 April 2013, the day following the Claimant’s letter of complaint.
The facts giving rise to this claim arise out of criminal convictions which were described by Moses LJ in his judgment delivered on 22 May 2012 ( R v Krause [2012] EWCA Crim 2058 ). He was giving his reasons for dismissing the Claimant's renewed application for permission to appeal against conviction, and for allowing an appeal against sentence. The transcript reads.
"1. This is a renewed application for permission to appeal against conviction following this applicant's conviction of acting in breach of a restraining order contrary to section 5(5) of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 . The conviction was recorded on 9th September 2011.
2. The case against this applicant was that she had breached various requirements of a restraining order which had been made against the applicant by Chester Magistrates' Court on 29th July 2010. The prosecution case was that in relation to two of the counts she had been staring at her neighbours from her premises, the third count alleged that she had shone a torch at the vehicle and the occupants, and the fourth count that she had approached a visitor, a gas man, about apparently a long-running grievance she had in relation to noise emitted from the flue of her gas boiler.
3. The original restraining order was eight items long. As a result of an appeal, with which we have just dealt with by way of an appeal by way of case stated, the restraining order was reduced. Part of the grounds of this appeal, which the applicant pursues, is that she says that she was found guilty of breaches in respect of aspects of the original restraining order that no longer remain.
4. Even if that were correct, and we doubt that it is, it would not amount to any ground for an appeal. The order that was made by the Magistrates' Court required the applicant to obey it until such time as she was able to demonstrate either that it was wrong or could be overthrown. There might be circumstances in which an unlawful condition wa