Andrew Bridgen MP v Matthew Hancock MP
[2024] EWHC 623 (KB)
Andrew Bridgen v Matt Hancock
24 June 2024
[2024] EWHC 1603 (KB)
High Court
Mr Hancock tweeted criticism of Mr Bridgen's comments about vaccines, calling them antisemitic. A judge decided the tweet mainly showed Mr Hancock's opinion about what Mr Bridgen *said*, not whether Mr Bridgen is personally antisemitic. While the tweet was considered potentially damaging, it was mostly deemed an opinion, not a false statement of fact.
Key Facts
- •Mr Bridgen brought a libel claim against Mr Hancock over a tweet posted on January 11, 2023.
- •The tweet referred to Mr Bridgen's earlier tweet containing controversial statements about COVID-19 vaccination.
- •Both Mr Bridgen and Mr Hancock were Conservative MPs at the time of the tweet (though neither are now).
- •Mr Hancock's tweet included a video clip from Prime Minister's Questions where he condemned Mr Bridgen's remarks as 'disgusting, antisemitic, anti-vax conspiracy theories'.
- •The court hearing focused on determining the single natural and ordinary meaning of the tweet and whether it was an allegation of fact or an expression of opinion.
Legal Principles
Determination of the single natural and ordinary meaning of words complained of, focusing on the meaning a hypothetical reasonable reader would understand.
Stocker v Stocker [2020] AC 593; Koutsogiannis v Random House Group [2020] 4 WLR 25
For tweets, an 'impressionistic approach' considering the whole tweet and context is appropriate.
Monroe v Hopkins [2017] 4 WLR 68
Context includes common knowledge, matters within the publication, and other reasonably accessible material. No special knowledge is assumed.
Riley v Murray [2020] EMLR 20
The test for fact vs. opinion is objective, focusing on how the words would strike the ordinary reasonable reader.
Koutsogiannis at [16] and [17]; Millett v Corbyn [2021] EWCA Civ 567
Courts should give free rein to comment and be wary of interpreting statements as factual, especially in political contexts.
Yeo v Times Newspapers Ltd [2015] 1 WLR 971
Outcomes
The single natural and ordinary meaning of the tweet is that an unnamed MP said something that morning related to vaccination which was baseless, unscientific, dangerous and offensive, including because its character was antisemitic.
The court found the tweet to be primarily an expression of Mr Hancock's opinions about the content of Mr Bridgen's earlier statement, rather than a factual allegation about Mr Bridgen's character or beliefs. The judge emphasized the context of rapid, reactive political commentary on social media.
The phrase 'antisemitic' is an assertion of fact; the remainder of the tweet is an expression of opinion.
The court determined that while labeling something 'antisemitic' is a factual assertion, the overall context of the tweet indicated an opinion on the nature of Mr Bridgen's statements, not a direct accusation of antisemitism against him as a person.