Corbyn begins appeal fight after being sued for defamation

LONDON: Former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn has begun a Court of Appeal fight after being sued for defamation by a political blogger.

Corbyn is challenging preliminary findings made by a High Court judge. Three appeal judges began considering arguments at a Court of Appeal hearing in London on Tuesday.

Richard Millett has complained about things Corbyn said in a BBC television interview with broadcaster Andrew Marr in September 2018. He says Corbyn defamed him by accusing him of being “disruptive and abusive” at a 2013 meeting featuring a Palestinian speaker.

Corbyn disputes Millett’s claims and denies defaming him. Mr Justice Saini made preliminary decisions about the meaning of words Corbyn used – and about whether he was stating facts or expressing opinion – in July following a High Court hearing. Lawyers representing Millett argued that the allegations were “factual”, while lawyers representing Corbyn argued that the “words conveyed a statement of opinion”. The judge concluded that Corbyn was making “factual” allegations “as to Mr Millett’s behaviour”. Lawyers representing Millett argued that to accuse someone of being “disruptive and abusive to the degree in issue” must have “caused him to have been defamed”.

Lawyers representing Corbyn disagreed and argued what had been said did not lower Millett in the “estimation of right-thinking people”. Mr Justice Saini concluded that the “words complained of” referred to Millett and “bore a meaning defamatory of Mr Millett”.

He said what had been stated suggested “conduct falling below the standards expected of citizens in modern British society”. Corbyn wants appeal judges to overturn decisions made by Mr Justice Saini.

Judges have heard that, shortly after the meeting involving the Palestinian speaker, Corbyn, who was then not the Labour leader, had addressed a conference organised by the Palestinian Return Centre. Corbyn had said “the Zionists” who had attended the meeting had “berated” the Palestinian speaker. He had said these “Zionists” did not want to study history and did not understand English irony.

In August 2018, when Corbyn had become leader of the Labour Party, a video of that “irony speech” was made public. Lawyers representing Millett said there had subsequently been “huge publicity” about “the fact that” Corbyn’s statements during the irony speech had been directed at Millett.

Marr had then asked Corbyn about the “irony speech”, during an interview on The Andrew Marr Show, in September 2018. Judges have heard how Corbyn had told Marr that he had not been “anti-Semitic”. He said two people had been “incredibly disruptive”, and he had accused them of not understanding English irony, because he wanted to defend the Palestinian speaker.

Millett says people who had read media articles saying statements Corbyn made during the “irony speech” were directed at him, would have realised that the Labour leader was referring to him when telling Marr about “two people” who had been “incredibly disruptive”.