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 |