Mitchell v News Group Newspapers Ltd
2014
QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION
United Kingdom
CORAM
- THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE TUGENDHAT
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Human Rights Law
2014
QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION
United Kingdom
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The case involves two libel actions: Mitchell suing NGN for reporting allegations he verbally abused police officers and Rowland suing Mitchell for calling him a liar. Both parties sought disclosure of documents from the Police Commissioner. The court granted some disclosure but refused others due to concerns about confidentiality and privacy rights.
Judgment
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE TUGENDHAT
Mr Justice Tugendhat :
There are two applications before the court, one in each of these two libel actions. The actions arise out of the very widely publicised allegation of PC Rowland about what Andrew Mitchell MP said to him on the evening of 19 September 2012 when Mr Mitchell was leaving Downing Street with his bicycle. Mr Mitchell sues NGN, the publishers of The Sun , in respect of a report of Mr Rowland’s allegations published on 21 September 2012. Mr Rowland sues Mr Mitchell in respect of Mr Mitchell’s allegation that Mr Rowland had lied in making his allegations against Mr Mitchell.
Mr Mitchell’s claim against News Group Newspapers Ltd has already been the subject of a judgment of the Court of Appeal on an issue as to costs: Andrew Mitchell MP v News Group newspapers Ltd [2013] EWCA Civ 1537 (27 November 2013). The central allegation in dispute in the action was summarised by the Court of Appeal as follows:
“ The Sun Newspaper reported that the claimant, then the Chief Whip of the Conservative Party, had raged against police officers at the entrance to Downing Street in a foul mouthed rant shouting "you're f…ing plebs". The incident, which received wide coverage, has since become known as "plebgate".”
There have been extensive investigations into the allegations of Mr Mitchell and Mr Rowland. On 26 November 2013 the Crown Prosecution Service issued a statement headed: “CPS decisions in Operation Alice – incident at Downing Street on 19 September 2012”. The Director of Public Prosecutions explained that the CPS had decided not to prosecute Mr Rowland because there was insufficient evidence to show that he had lied in his account, and insufficient evidence that Mr Mitchell was the victim of a conspiracy of misinformation. There was also an investigation under the Police Reform Act 2002 . Under that Act a complaint may be referred to the Independent Police Complaints Commission.
The applications are each for disclosure against the Commissioner, who is not a party to either action, pursuant to CPR r.31.17. That rule provides, so far as material:
“(1) This rule applies where an application is made to the court under any Act for disclosure by a person who is not a party to the proceedings.
(2) The application must be supported by evidence.
(3) The court may make an order under this rule only where–
(a) the documents of which disclosure is sought are likely to support the case of the applicant or ad