Actor-turned-politician Laurence Fox has been ordered to pay £90,000 in damages each to two people he libelled by referring to them as “paedophiles” on social media, by a High Court judge.
Fox lost his legal dispute in January after being sued by former Stonewall trustee Simon Blake and drag artist Crystal – who is also known as Colin Seymour – who he referred to as paedophiles on social media. Fox made the remark during an exchange about Sainsbury's decision to mark Black History Month back in October 2020. The Reclaim Party founder said at the time he would boycott the supermarket.
Mr Fox countersued Mr Blake and Mr Seymor and actress Nicola Thorp over tweets accusing him of racism, but his claims were dismissed by Mrs Justice Collins Rice. The judge said Mr Fox subjected Mr Blake and Mr Seymour 'to a wholly undeserved public ordeal', adding: "It was a gross, groundless and indefensible libel, with distressing and harmful real-world consequences for them.
Laurence Fox must pay £90k each to two social media users he called 'paedophiles' in a heated exchange (PA Wire)"They are entitled by law to an award of money, to compensate them for those damaging effects, and to ensure that they can put this matter behind them, vindicated and confident that no-one can sensibly doubt their blamelessness of that disgusting slur and that they were seriously wronged by it.”
In a judgment in January, Mrs Justice Collins Rice ruled in favour of Mr Blake and Mr Seymour, dismissing Mr Fox’s counter-claims. The case returned to the High Court in London in March to determine the consequences of the judge’s ruling, including any compensation and injunctions.
Andrew Bridgen threatens to sue Matt Hancock over Covid vaccine comments row
Simon Blake (left), Nicola Thorp and Colin Seymour (right) arriving at the Royal Courts Of Justice (Lucy North/PA Wire)Lorna Skinner KC, for Mr Blake and Mr Seymour, asked for 'at least six-figure' damages for the pair, telling the court: “The peculiar feature of an allegation like this… it is an allegation that somebody does not need to be convinced of the truth of it to shun and avoid a person.” The barrister called a suggestion the pair should only receive a “modest” award “nonsense”.
As well as damages, Ms Skinner also asked for an order requiring Mr Fox to publish a summary of the judge’s decision on his X – formerly Twitter – account. She told the court: “What Mr Fox has been telling his followers about the claim brought by the claimants is completely inaccurate. They are being fed a narrative about this judgment that is simply not true.” Ms Skinner also asked for an injunction preventing Mr Fox from repeating the allegations, telling the court that he has “a real vitriol about these claimants”.
Patrick Green KC, for Mr Fox – who did not attend – said there was no need for the Lewis actor to publicise the ruling decision on his social media. He said in written submissions: “This has been the most high-profile libel action of the year and both the trial and the judgment were massively reported in the media…. There can be few, if any, original publishees in the present case who will be unaware of its outcome.”
He continued: “The rhetorical nature of the comments was made clear within the hour, the defendant had given his first apology within a week… the fact that Mr Blake and Mr Seymour succeeded in their claims with a public judgment of the court should already convince any reasonable bystander that the effect is erased.
“For whatever passing doubts or vague suspicions that may have at some time subsisted in the minds of readers, only a modest financial award in compensation should be due. The remarks were quickly retracted and apologised for, and at the very least it was clear to the public at large at an early stage that the allegation was baseless,” he added.
Mr Green later told the court that Mr Fox’s libels “were directly provoked” by the three individuals, who sent “undoubtedly abusive and offensive” posts. During a trial in London in November, Mr Fox said he faced a “significant decline” in the number and quality of roles he was offered after he was accused of being a racist.
But in the 41-page ruling earlier this year, Mrs Justice Collins Rice said it would be “extremely long odds” for the trio’s tweets to have caused the current state of his acting career or other serious harm. In her judgment, Mrs Justice Collins Rice concluded: “Mr Fox’s labelling of Mr Blake and Mr Seymour as paedophiles was, on the evidence, probabilities and facts of this case, seriously harmful, defamatory and baseless.”
“Mr Fox did not attempt to show these allegations were true, and he was not able to bring himself on the facts within the terms of any other defence recognised in law.”
Read more similar news:
Comments:
comments powered by Disqus
