High Court Finds Two U.K. Dailies in Contempt in Murder Trial Coverage

Levi Bellfield (Photo credit: Wikipedia)In HM Attorney General v. Associated Newspaper Ltd. & Anor [2012] EWHC 2029, the High Court of Justice found The Daily Mirror and The Daily Mail violated the Contempt of Court Act of 1981 (Ch. 49) in their coverage of the trial of Levi Bellfield for the murder of Milly Dowler, The Guardian (www.guardian.com.uk) reports.

Coverage of the trial of Bellfield for the murder of Dowler and attempted kidnapping of Rachel Cowles began in early May 2011. Bellfield, convicted of the murder of two women in 2008, was found guilty of killing Dowler by the jury on June 23, 2011. While the jury was still deliberating on the Cowles kidnapping charge, the Mail and Mirror published articles on June 24, 2011, containing information not previously presented to the jury, the High Court found.

Specifically, the Mail article concerned Bellfield's alleged murder of another woman and the drugging and raping of schoolgirls, while the Mirror wrote about Bellfield's alleged mistreatment of his ex-wife and a former girlfriend, as well as the purported rape of a disabled woman.

The High Court, in a judgment by Sir John Thomas,  found both papers' articles "seriously prejudicial" as had the trial judge, who cited the prejudicial nature of the articles in discharging the jury before it decided the kidnapping allegation.

Although the High Court's decision is consistent with the strict liability provision of the Contempt of Court Act, it is arguable whether a jury that already knew of Bellfield's 2008 homicides and itself had convicted him of Dowler's murder could be prejudicially influenced against him by the Mail and Mirror articles.

UPDATE: Nancy Benoit Heirs Ask 11th Circ. to Reinstate $20m Judgment Against Hustler Magazine

Image via WikipediaA three-judge panel of the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit this week heard arguments from the family of the late model/pro wrestler Nancy (Toffolini) Benoit to reinstate a $20 million judgment in their invasion of privacy suit against Hustler Magazine's parent company, Larry Flynt Publishing Group LLC, which published nude photos of Benoit a year after she and her seven-year-old son were strangled by her pro wrestler husband, Chris Benoit, in a murder/suicide in June 2007.

Last June, a jury awarded Nancy Benoit's family $19.6 million in punitive damages, along with $125,000 in compensatory damages, but U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia Judge Thomas Thrash, Jr. reduced the $19.6 million to $250,000, citing Georgia's statutory cap on punitive damages. (See "TUOL" post 6/20/11.) As reported by the Daily Mail online edition (www.dailymail.co.uk), Associated Press and the ABA Journal Law News Now blog, counsel for Nancy Benoit's Estate argued the adult magazine "acted...with intent to harm" the plaintiff, an exception to the statutory cap, so the $19.6 million puntive damages award should be reinstated. Counsel for the defendant argued on First Amendment grounds that the matter was wrongly tried in the first instance because the photos of Nancy Benoit were newsworthy, involving a matter of public concern, a recognized defense to invasion of privacy claims.

Dancer's Libel Suit Against Daily Mail a Misstep, Court Rules

Image via WikipediaFrom across the Pond comes a story from The Guardian concerning Strictly Come Dancing hoofer and lawyer Nancy Dell'Olio, 50, (the apostrophe is silent), who unsuccessfully sued Daily Mail parent Associated Newspapers, Ltd. for libel, claiming she was defamed in an article about her romantic involvement with thrice-married, 71-year-old theater director Sir Trevor Nunn.

Dell'Olio sued over an April 2011, Daily Mail article headlined "Return of the man-eater," claiming the article ignored the couple's mutual love of theater and each other by portraying her in a defamatory way as a "serial gold-digger." Associated Newspapers acknowledged the article was not a paean to Dell'Olio, but argued it fairly depicted the couple's mutual admiration, noted Nunn made the initial overtures to the plaintiff, and denied the piece defamed Dell'Olio.

Mr. Justice (Michael) Tugendhat of the High Court (not a Dr. Seuss creation) agreed with the daily, writing that although "man-eater" has a predatory connotation, it doesn't rise to the more actionable level of "serial gold-digger," which must be a great relief to grizzly bears and Great White sharks everywhere.  Not likely the plaintiff would have fared any better in the States, where the "fair comment" defense probably would have found the offending statements non-defamatory opinion.

Final tally--Daily Mail: 1, Dell'Olio: Nunn.

007 Film Producer Broccoli Wins Libel Suit--Reputation Be-'SMERSHed'

Image by Getty Images via @daylifeU.K. newspapers The Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday will publish apologies and pay undisclosed damages to James Bond film producer Barbara Broccoli over August 2010, articles that suggested as a U.K. Film Council member, she steered grant money to a company she owned, according to a story on the Website PressGazette.uk.com.

The Mail on Sunday August 15, 2010, edition sported a story headlined: "Axed film quango gave 70 million pounds ($113,228,148) to own members." For "TUOL"'s American readers, Broccoli wasn't upset about being called a quango (quasi-autonomous non-governmental orgranization). Rather, she resented the allegation that she used her position as a member of the board of directors of the Film Councill to funnel public funds  to First Light, a company the defendants alleged she owned.

Her attorneys told the High Court that First Light is a registered charity to which Broccoli contributes, but has neither an ownership interest or financial stake in. Associated Newspapers, the defendants' parent company, plans to publish an apology to the plaintiff, Broccoli, Barbara Broccoli.

Magazine Nets a 'Tweet' Libel Settlement

Image via WikipediaPCMag.com reports on an unusual out-of-court resolution of a defamation suit--the defendant agreed to Tweet his apology to the plaintiff 100 times.

Malaysian blogger Fahmi Fadzil sent an unflattering post about Blu Inc. Media, publisher of Female Magazine, on June 25 that criticized the company about what he believed was its mistreatment of his pregnant friend that he claimed caused her to quit her employment with Blu Inc. Although Fadzil retracted his negative comment, Blu, Inc.'s attorneys sent him a letter demanding an apology and seeking monetary damages.

Instead, the parties agreed that Fadzil would Tweet the following mea culpa: "I've defamed Blu Inc Media & Female Magazine. My tweets on their HR policies are untrue. I retract those words and hereby apologize."  Who says you can't convey any message in 140 characters? Fadzil began sending his apology in 30-minute intervals to his approximate 5,300 followers.

Perhaps it's a cultural difference:  Malaysia employs the microblogging social platform of Twitter to resolve a defamation lawsuit, whereas in the U.S., as reported by this blog, the number of defamation suits involving Tweets are on the rise ("Twibel" is a likely entry in the next edition of the Oxford Dictionary).

English High Court Sides With Daily Mail, Protects Anonymous Commenters

Image via WikipediaCiting the privacy rights of anonymous bloggers under the European Convention on Human Rights, England's High Court ruled The Daily Mail does not have to reveal the identities of two "posters" sought by a woman who wants to sue them for defamation.

Mrs. Justice Victoria Sharp, in her ruling, said the posters' privacy rights trumped the would-be plaintiff's right to take legal action, adding that the underlying anonymous comments amounted to little more than "pub talk." Underlying the case was an online Daily Mail article about a successful defamation suit brought by the would-be plaintiff against Slough Borough Council. The woman was incensed by two anonymous remarks posted on the Mail's Web site following the article.

Mrs. Justice Sharp said the woman's case did not warrant revealing the identities of the posters.

Facebook Face-Off With U.K. Daily Over Pedophile Ring Story

Image via CrunchBase

The Daily Mail (http://www.dailymail.co.uk), the England-based daily owned by Associated Newspapers, Ltd., is in a dust-up with Facebook, which the social network giant threatens may end up in court or before the Press Complaints Commission, according to a story in today's Daily Mail.

Already, at Facebook's urging, the Daily Mail pulled the following headline from its online edition last Friday: "How many more victims of Facebook sex gang?" The headline accompanied a story about an ongoing police probe of a pedophile ring operating in Devon that so far has resulted in the arrest of a 19-year-old man on two sex offense charges. The article detailed warnings issued by authorities to parents of 16,000 students in Torbay about a gang of child abusers who have preyed on as many as 20 victims to date.

Facebook objected to the headline on the grounds that no evidence has yet surfaced that the social network site was in any way involved in facilitating the sexual exploitation of the alleged victims.  Although the Daily Mail changed the headline at issue, it has yet to accede to Facebook's demand for a written apology, instead issuing a statement standing by its story.

The Daily Mail and Facebook also were involved in a tussle last March that resulted in the paper's apology to Facebook, which wrongly was identified in a story as the social networking site on which a man posed as a teen-aged girl and was propositioned by several older men to perform a sex act.

It remains to be seen whether the newspaper will be sued or just "de-friended."

Fledgling Photog to U.K. Daily: Pay Up for Using My Photo

Image via WikipediaStinkyjournalism.org picked up a story in the British Journal of Photography involving student photographer Thomas Welfoot, whose photo of a student protester turning a fire extinguisher on authorities apparently appeared five times in the print and online versions of The Daily Mail without his permission.

Welfoot sold his photo to Sky News, but sent the Mail a bill seeking 1,000 pounds ($1,599) for the repeated unauthorized use of his photo.  The Mail, in turn, offered him 150 pounds ($240). The Daily Mail was recently sued by a celebrity photography agency for unauthorized use of its photos. Readers and professionals have weighed in on the matter, some acknowledging that the student shutterbug's invoice was excessive, while others consider the fee adequate punishment for the Mail's alleged commandeering of the photo. As with most photo disputes, we'll have to wait and see what develops (first pun of 2011).

Will Fergie Be in Oprah's Debt?

Image via Wikipedia

According to a story in the U.K. Daily Mail, the Oprah Winfrey Network may be offering a talk show on the cable channel to Sarah Ferguson, the 50-year-old Duchess of York, author of the Budgie series of children's books, and debtor extraordinaire.

The Daily Mail account said Winfrey, 56, was impressed by Fergie's mea culpa appearance on  Oprah's talk show last spring when she fessed up to soliciting payment in return for access to her former hubby, Prince Andrew. Press accounts suggest the former Princess may be in hock to the tune of 2 million pounds.

Hard to guess what kind of ratings Fergie might draw. After all, the storybook marriage to charming Prince Andrew happened in 1986. Viewers may be forgiven if they react to news of "Fergie" getting a talk show on the Oprah Network by saying: "She's looking the worse for wear since the Black Eyed Peas broke up."

The Daily Mail will never be confused with The New York Times, so the tireless staff of "TUOL" is not programming its DVR just yet.  If the rumored tv "marriage" does pan out, there will be dancing in the boardroom of Weight Watchers.

Kate Winslet Exercised at Daily Mail, Accepts Libel Payment

Image by Getty Images via Daylife

Oscar-winning actress Kate Winslet, 34, has accepted an apology from Daily Mail owner Associated Newspapers, which was sugar-coated with a 25,000 pound ($41,012.00) settlement of her defamation claim  that was reached in the London High Court.

Winslet was incensed over an article that appeared in the Daily Mail Jan. 30, 2009, entitled: "Should Kate Winslet win an Oscar for the World's most irritating actress?" The article, according to Winslet's attorney, was offensive in tone, featured  nude photos of the actress taken from scenes in various films and accused Winslet of lying about her exercise regimen.  Besides apologizing for any "distress" caused the actress who appeared most recently in "Revolutionary Road" and "The Reader," Associated Newspapers agreed to pay her attorneys' fess and damages and published an apology in September.  In 2007, Winslet received an undisclosed sum in settlement of a suit she brought against Grazia magazine, which alleged she had visited a diet doctor.

No announcement concerning what Winslet intends to do with her "Titanic" settlement, but one can buy considerable "Romance & Cigarettes" with $40,000.