the legal battle:

ITN vs LM

The Defence


The legal documents so far:

The original letter from ITN's solicitors

Statement of Claim from ITN

>The Defence

Two-Ten Statement in Open Court

The Reply

The Defendants' List of Documents

Request For Further and Better Particulars of the Defence

The Reply to the Request

Request for Further and Better Particulars of the Reply


IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION 1st April 1997

    BETWEEN:-

    (1) INDEPENDENT TELEVISION NEWS LIMITED

    (2) PENNY MARSHALL

    (3) IAN WILLIAMS Plaintiffs

    - and -

    (1) INFORMINC (LM) LIMITED

    (2) MICHAEL HUME

    (3) HELENE GULDBERG


DEFENCE

1. Paragraph 1 of the Statement of Claim is admitted.

2. The First Defendant has published the monthly magazine, Living Marxism, referred to at paragraph 2 of the Statement of Claim as from the date of its incorporation on 29th January 1997.

3. The Second Defendant is and was at times material to this action the Editor of Living Marxism.

4. The Second and Third Defendants jointly published the press release of 23rd January 1997 referred to at paragraph 3 of the Statement of Claim. Approximately one hundred copies of the said press release were sent out and it was also put out through a news agency.

5. The circulation of Living Marxism is approximately ten thousand copies per month of which around half are sold by subscription.

6. Save insofar as admitted at paragraph 2 - 5 inclusive hereof, paragraphs 2 and 3 of the Statement of Claim are denied.

7. It is denied that the said press release contained any words:

a) referring to the First Plaintiff (save for the letters "ITN" in brackets after the name of the Second Plaintiff which merely identified her as a journalist employed by the First Plaintiff) and/or;

b) which bore or were capable of bearing or being understood to bear the defamatory meaning alleged at paragraph 4 of the Statement of Claim of the First Plaintiff or any other defamatory meaning in relation to the First Plaintiff;

c) which bore or were capable of bearing or being understood to bear the defamatory meaning alleged at paragraph 4 of the Statement of Claim in relation to the Second and Third Plaintiffs.

8. Further or in the alternative, the words in the said press release bore the following meaning, namely that the Second and Third Plaintiffs:

a) had compiled television footage which deliberately misrepresented an emaciated Bosnian Muslim, Fikret Alic, as being caged behind a barbed wire fence at the Serbian run Trnopolje camp on 5th August 1992 by the selective use of videotape shots of him;

b) failed to explain publicly that the said shots were of Fikret Alic standing outside a barbed wire fence which surrounded the area from which the cameraman was filming, when the said misleading image of Fikret Alic was widely interpreted as evidence that the Bosnian Serbs were running Nazi-style concentration camps;

c) ought, in the above-mentioned circumstances, to have given such a public explanation but discreditably failed to do so;

and the Defendants contend that they were true in substance and fact. If and in so far as may be necessary, the Defendants will rely upon section 5 of the Defamation Act 1952.

PARTICULARS

i) On 5th August 1992 the Second and Third Plaintiffs went to a Bosnian Serb run camp at Trnopolje (hereinafter referred to as "the camp") to compile television news reports for ITN and Channel 4 respectively;

ii) Whilst at Trnopolje as aforesaid the Second and Third Plaintiffs and their cameraman entered an enclosure next to the camp surrounded by a barbed wire fence (hereinafter referred to as "the depicted fence");

iii) There was no barbed wire fence surrounding the camp;

iv) Whilst inside the enclosure as aforesaid the cameraman took videotape shots from different angles including shots of the said Bosnian Muslim Fikret Alic, who was emaciated, and others behind (but on the outside of) the depicted fence;

v) The Second and Third Plaintiffs shot other, subsequently unused, videotape footage at the camp on 5th August 1992, in addition to the said footage of Fikret Alic and others outside the depicted fence;

vi) The Second and Third Plaintiffs subsequently compiled reports which were broadcast by ITN and Channel 4 respectively using some of the videotape footage shot at Trnopolje on 5th August 1992 and including the said shots of Fikret Alic outside the depicted fence;

vii) Neither of the said reports suggested or indicated that the depicted fence was surrounding the film crew rather than Fikret Alic;

viii) Both of the said reports were written and compiled in such a way as to give the misleading impression that Fikret Alic was imprisoned and caged inside (and by) the depicted fence;

ix) The Court will be invited to infer that both of the said reports were deliberately written and compiled by the Second and Third Plaintiffs so as to give the said misleading impression;

x) The picture of Fikret Alic behind the depicted fence included in the said broadcasts was subsequently reproduced and seen around the world;

xi) The said picture was widely interpreted as evidence that Fikret Alic and the others in the picture were caged inside the camp by the depicted fence and that the Bosnian Serbs were therefore running camps akin to Nazi concentration camps ;

xii) As a result of the matters referred to at x) and xi) above, there was an international outcry against the Bosnian Serbs and in favour of international intervention in Bosnia;

xiii) The said interpretation was made possible by the deliberately misleading nature of the said image of Fikret Alic presented in the said reports (as aforesaid);

xiv) The Second and Third Plaintiffs should then have explained publicly the true circumstances (as aforesaid) in which the said videotape shots came to be taken;

xv) Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Second and Third Plaintiffs have never given such an explanantion.

9. Further or in the alternative, the words in the said press release bore the meaning referred to at paragraph 8 c) above which was fair comment on a matter of public interest namely the manner in which the Second and Third Plaintiffs permitted world opinion to be influenced as aforesaid by a misinterpretation of the said picture of Fikret Alic.

PARTICULARS OF FACTS AND MATTERS ON WHICH THE COMMENT WAS BASED

The Defendants repeat the facts and matters pleaded at subparagraphs 8 (i) - (vii) inclusive and (x) - (xv) inclusive above.

The Defendants will if necessary rely upon s.6 of the Defamation Act 1952.

lO. Paragraph 5 of the Statement of Claim is admitted.

11. It is denied that the said feature and editorial contained any words:

a) referring to the First Plaintiff, which suggested that the First Plaintiff did anything other than broadcast the said reports as received from the Second and Third Plaintiffs who had compiled them in an editing suite in Budapest;

b) which bore or were capable of bearing or being understood to bear the defamatory meaning alleged at paragraph 4 of the Statement of Claim of the First Plaintiff or any other defamatory meaning in relation to the First Plaintiff ;

c) which bore or were capable of bearing or being understood to bear the defamatory meaning alleged at paragraph 4 of the Statement of Claim in the Second and Third Plaintiffs ;

and paragraph 6 of the Statement of- Claim is therefore denied.

11. Further or in the alternative, the words of the said feature and editorial bore the meaning alleged at paragraph 8 above and the Defendants contend that they are true in substance and in fact. If and in so far as may be necessary, the Defendants will rely upon section 5 of the Defamation Act 1952.

PARTICULARS

The Defendants repeat word for word the particulars pleaded at paragraph 8 hereof.

12. Further or in the alternative, the words in the said feature and editorial bore the meaning referred to at paragraph 8 c) above which was fair comment on a matter of public interest namely the manner in which the Second and Third Plaintiffs permitted world opinion to be influenced as aforesaid by a misintepretation of the said picture of Fikret Alic.

PARTICULARS OF FACTS AND MATTERS ON WHICH THE COMMENT WAS BASED

The Defendants repeat the particulars pleaded at paragraph 9 above.

The Defendants will if necessary rely upon s.6 of the Defamation Act 1952.

12. Paragraph 7 of the Statement of Claim is denied.

13. Paragraph 8.1 of the Statement of Claim is admitted.

14. After the Second Defendant had received the Plaintiffs' solicitors letter of 24th January 1997 referred to at paragraph 8.l of the Statement of Claim the Second and Third Defendants issued a press release headed ITN TRIES TO GAG LM and published the said feature and article as aforesaid.

15. Save insofar as it is admitted at paragraph 14 above, paragraph 8.2 of the Statement of Claim is denied.

16. Paragraph 9 of the Statement of Claim is denied.

GAVIN MILLAR

SERVED the 1st day of April 1997 by Christian Fisher of 42 Museum Street, Bloomsbury, London, WClA lLY Solicitors for the Defendants

Two-Ten Statement in Open Court