Banning UK Books before Publication:The Groucho Club vs Tyrone D Murphy
- Banning UK Books before Publication:The Groucho Club vs Tyrone D Murphy
- Groucho Club pulls out of Libel Action against Tyrone D Murphy
- Tyrone D Murphy 1. Groucho Club: Faceplant
The Groucho Club has taken legal action to prevent publication of a critical book by Tyrone D Murphy, before the book has even been finished. The book would document ‘colourful’ episodes and characters at the Groucho Club, and the Club has taken action to try and stop the project in its tracks.
The Groucho-Murphy Story so far
This story has been bubbling about for a few days since dramatic press releases started appearing on “published your own free press release” websites (example), and comments on dozens of blog articles about libel law (example) under the name “E F Orwell”.
But there has been little authoritative information available; I was completely stonewalled by the Groucho reception about a week ago (”interesting to talk to you, but we have no comment”). Equally, several bloggers have been trying to get specific information, and court documents, from the Tyrone D Murphy side for a full week – with no success so far.
Now Judith Townend (@jtownend) of Journalism.co.uk has a statement from Devonshires, the Groucho Club’s solicitors. It is also carried, more briefly, by Index on Censorship. This is the summary from the Journalism.co.uk report:
The Groucho Club is to take libel action against an author of a book not yet published to prevent publication of allegations about the famous media haunt, Index on Censorship and Journalism.co.uk can report.
In October, a case management conference will take place at the Queen’s Bench division of the UK High Court to decide future progress of the case, Kapital Ventures and the Groucho Club London v Tyrone D Murphy and Classic Media Entertainment. The claimants expect to recover in excess of 15,000 ukp, it is stated in the claim form.
The defendant, whose film company Classic Media Entertainment is currently dormant, intends to represent himself. “If a writer or journalist wants to publish a story that is true he should not be restricted by the threat of costly litigation,” Murphy said.
Murphy, who describes himself as an independent film maker and is a member of the National Union of Journalists, claims that the content of his forthcoming ‘exposé’ book regards the management of the club, not individual members. As yet, he said, the allegations have only been put to Groucho management in private correspondence.
The Groucho Club previously applied for an injunction against Murphy in early 2009, but abandoned that action, and now intends to sue for libel in the High Court.
Murphy’s allegations about the Groucho Club have not yet been published. He claims that the book is about 50 per cent complete. He said that he has approached the Club for response in regards to specific claims that he wishes to include in his book.
When contacted for comment, an employee at the Groucho Club told Journalism.co.uk that the club does not respond to media requests.
Read the rest of Judith’s report for detail of the Groucho statement, and their version of events. Murphy disputes the account within the Groucho statement, but doesn’t provide a detailed alternative account. From his “G-Book” website:
On the 27th August 2009 both Journalism and Index on Censorship run a story about the case. The story contains a a word for word statement that was made by the Groucho Club’s solicitors Devonshires. The contents of this statement made by the claimants solicitors are inaccurate and the forthcoming cases will shed light on the whole affair.
I don’t think that I have sufficient information to develop a reliable narrative, so I’m restricting myself to specifics and adding some background.
The Groucho Club’s Legal Claims
According to the statement from Solicitors Devonshires, the Groucho applied for a pre-publication injunction early in 2009 “to restrain the publication of specific statements made by Mr Murphy in written correspondence which were untrue and libellous and which he was at that time threatening to imminently publish on a website”.
The club claims that Tyrone D Murphy backed down, and gave an undertaking not to publish those statements.
I dislike these actions on principle, since it opens the way to the legalised bullying of Cease and Desist letters to gag writers before they publish.
I would much prefer a basic right to publish, with an appropriate legal system of redress for defamation afterwards – in my view the downside of suppression of legitimate reporting is a greater societal evil than the prevention of some defamation is a good.
In addition to a Libel Action, the Groucho is also claiming “for a trade mark infringement and passing off by Murphy, in regards to particular domain names and an email address”, and taking “appropriate enforcement action” with regards to £5k of costs from the previous action.
The “passing off” claim is interesting, but I think that “Pissing off” is probably closer to the mark.
I’m also wondering whether we are watching a good old-fashioned defamation law “we’ve got more money for fees than you, so we are likely to win” bulldozer.
The Schillings / Craig Murray Precedent
I have not seen this linked to the current case, but a precedent of a threat of a pre-publication injunction on a speculative basis exists. In 2008 Schillings attempted to pre-censor one of Craig Murray’s books with a Cease and Desist on behalf of Lieutenant-Colonel Tim Spicer (OBE, CEO, PDZ) about alleged possible defamation, which may or may not have actually existed.
This letter included a threat to take out an injunction if action did not follow within 3 days of the date of the letter:
We require the above undertaking by 4pm on Friday 11th July 2009, failing which we will have no option but to advise our client with regard to making applications to the High Court for an injunction to restrain publication for pre-action disclosure. You are on notice that we will seek to recover the costs of any necessary applications from you.
Mr Murray published the letter, which appears on his site and on Wikileaks. Note: I am reproducing this image because it is already clearly prominently visible to the entire world in the public domain, and being used hear for editorial reference.
(Aside: I love “we will have no option”. There is of course another “option” – stop sending people silly threatening letters without providing any evidential backup to “we have reason to believe”.)
As far as I am aware, the injunction turned out to be vapourware.
Wrapping Up
This case is not a straight case of nasty lawyers seeking to destroy courageous journalists, since there is (in my opinion, anyway) at least an element of self-promotion in the way Mr Murphy is presenting his book.
However, the Groucho – in a weird action for a club for the media – seems to be painting itself as the villain in attempting to use England’s banana-republic defamation laws to prevent free debate.
Perhaps the real legal question that needs addressing here is about enforcement of laws without fear or favour *inside* the Groucho, particularly during snowstorms.
Personally, I’d be tempted to recommend the Groucho for Charitable Status, for providing the eminently important benefit of keeping the head-up-their-own-arses end of the Arty, the Farty, and the Londonerati away from mainstream society.
One other suggestion I’m hearing is that this should all be made into a Christmas Pantomime, with a lot of celebrities playing themselves.
Categories: All WW, Breaking News, Comment, Ethics - Religion, Human Rights / Freedom, Humour, Knockabout, Legal, Media, Miscellaneous, News - Current Affairs, Politics, Review
[...] websites and a small blog by the author of the comments. Nothing authoritative or independent. Matt Wardman, who also had a comment left on his blog, tried contacting the Groucho Club directly, but they [...]
Perhaps you should look up on the Bonnard V Perryman case to get some clarification on a libel case
xx
The fear that a last-minute injunction might prevent publication of a story is a familiar one for journalists.
Where, however, the journalist asserts that the article is true, the law protects the journalist’s right to free speech.
The rule in Bonnard v Perryman discourages courts from granting injunctions where the defendant informs the court that the defamatory allegations are true. The position can be more complicated, however, when the journalist is dealing with material that is not only defamatory but is also clearly confidential or private.
There has been concern that the operation of the 1998 Human Rights Act might temper the rule in Bonnard v. Perryman. The recent case of Maris & Ors v Walsh touched on these issues and reaffirmed that the court will “tread carefully” before granting such an injunction.
Mr Walsh had been employed by the claimants and intended to publish information about them which was both confidential and defamatory. The information included business projections, internal instructions about share transfers and the personal tax details of Mr Maris and was clearly confidential.
Mr Walsh had received it under an obligation of confidence and the use he was threatening to make of the information would be unauthorised and to the claimants’ detriment and there was no public interest defence.
Mr Walsh’s right to freedom of expression under the Human Rights Act had to be taken into account but, as the judge concluded that the claimants had a real prospect of succeeding on their claim at trial, it did not trump the claimants’ rights.
In relation to the libel, Mr Walsh had compiled what was referred to in court as a “do-do list” of statements about Mr Maris and the companies under his control, all of which were seriously defamatory. Confirming the rule in Bonnard, the judge stated that the court would not generally grant an injunction where the defendant asserts an intention to justify what he wishes to publish. Had Mr Walsh shown an intention to demonstrate the truth of his “do-do list”, the court might have been reluctant to grant the injunction.
However, Mr Walsh made no such assertion and indeed did not appear at the hearing.
The judge found that there was abundant evidence to suggest that the defamatory allegations against Mr Maris and the companies were plainly untrue. An injunction was therefore granted to restrain Mr Walsh from publishing his “do-do list”.
It is not clear what the judge would have done had Mr Walsh’s case been more meritorious and had he asserted that the allegations were true. This would have placed the focus clearly on the tensions between the right to confidence against the right to free speech. However, the outcome of this case does not affect the rule in Bonnard v Perryman.
Thanks for that – very valuable.
The story is now 4 and 5 in the SERPS for “Groucho Club” so it may begin to seep out a bit.
Don’t mind me. Just subscribing to comments.
.-= Sim-O´s last blog ..Groucho Club vs Tyrone D Murphy =-.
Groucho –V- Murphy
The Groucho –V- Murphy case is now at an end as the Groucho Club pulled out at the very last minute. The Club issued a discontinuance notice on the 3rd November 2009.
This move came just 5 days after a manager from the Groucho Club came forward and made a statement to support Mr Murphy’s case. The lengthy and revealing statement with attached exhibits that included internal e mails and CCTV footage from the club was immediately lodged with the Courts. The manager’s damming statement totally refuted the Groucho Clubs statement of case. Murphy is now chasing the Groucho Club for his costs.
Another interesting development in this case is that the Groucho Club have issued a Bankruptcy petition against Murphy for costs of £5000 on the very same day they issued the discontinuance notice for the failed libel action which will allow Murphy to claim his costs which are over £50,000.
This raises some very serious questions about the Groucho Club’s tactics and overall conduct throughout the duration of this case. The Groucho Club would of course have know that Murphy is entitled to claim his costs (£50k) so why would they then would they make such a dubious move and issue a bankruptcy petition for a much lower amount of £5k . Was this nothing more than an underhanded tactic that was merely done to avoid paying Murphy’s costs in the failed libel action? If so, is this an abuse of the legal process? If not, what other possible reason or motive could the Groucho Club have to make such a dubious move?
There is yet another episode to this dark and lengthy saga – Murphy who at all times has represented himself as a litigant in person (LIP) had taken an action against the Groucho Club in a Wales County Court This was a Data Protection Act case, Murphy’s statement of case was that the Groucho Club had not complied with the Data Protection Act and failed to supply him with CCTV he requested from the evening of the 12th June 2008 . Murphy’s case also stated that the Groucho Club had more than 2 CCTV cameras at the Club on the evening and he was seeking the additional footage from these cameras
The Groucho Clubs position in the case was that they did supply Murphy with all of the footage he requested and that the club had only ever had 2 CCTV cameras, 1 camera in Dean Street and 1 camera in the reception. The Groucho Club stated they had complied with and adhered to the Data Protection Act and provided Murphy with footage in response to 2 separate subject access requests under the Data Protection Act.
Murphy also stated that the Groucho Club CCTV system was not registered with the Information Commissioners Office until a year later 25th June 2009 and any footage that was recorded before this time would have been recorded illegally. Murphy also stated that the CCTV system had no signage in place or a trained or licensed CCTV operator
The footage supplied by the Groucho to Murphy was alleged by the Groucho Club to be from the 2 CCTV cameras in the club, (1) Dean Street and (2) the main reception of the club. This was the Groucho Clubs official position for over a year and the same line was also stated by the Groucho Club in their statements before that were put before the Courts.
The Groucho Clubs Defence to particulars of Claim also stated clearly that the Groucho Club had only 2 CCTV cameras (1) Dean Street and (2) the main reception of the club and that they had supplied Murphy with the footage from those 2 CCTV cameras. In addition a solicitor within the firm of Devonshires, who represented the Groucho Club also stated to Murphy over and over again when he inspected the footage at the firms London offices, “this is the camera from (1) Dean Street and this is the camera (2) the main reception of the club”.
During the case Murphy lodged evidence with the courts that suggested that the footage supplied to him by Groucho club was not at all from the main Reception CCTV camera of the Groucho club but was footage from an obscure doorway at no 42 Dean Street, the other end of the building.
This is where the Groucho Club story changes; they put forward a new version of events that totally contradicted their earlier version. This new and different version that came very late in the case had now stated that the Groucho club did indeed have more cameras than the 2 CCTV cameras as Murphy had asserted, but they said that the 3rd camera was not working on the evening of the 12th June 2008, the footage from the night that Murphy had been seeking.
Murphy maintained throughout that he viewed himself on the CCTV monitor in the main reception of the Groucho Club on the 12th June 2008 and sought an explanation from the Groucho Club as to why he was supplied with footage from a CCTV camera from an obscure doorway at no 42 Dean Street instead of the footage from the CCTV camera in main reception. He did not get a satisfactory answer
Yet another twist in the case, Murphy had managed to procure the old CCTV system from the Groucho Club and he had brought it to the Court as evidence. This included the Video Recorder, Video tapes, a CCTV Switcher and the original CCTV cameras from the club. The CCTV system also included the CCTV camera from the main reception. This CCTV camera is still in good working order
Margaret Levin the managing director of the Groucho Club was in attendance in Newport along with a specialist barrister and a very expensive legal team. The court denied an application made by the Groucho legal team to dismiss Murphy’s case on the grounds it was totally without merit. Although Murphy did not succeed with his application he did however lodge crucial evidence with the Courts that will be used in another action that Murphy is planning against the Groucho Club
When the issue of costs was addressed the Groucho Club sought £21,000 in costs. In addition Margaret Levin the managing director was seeking first class rail tickets for her trip to sunny Newport, Murphy strongly objected to this and stated to the court that he, as a litigant in person and could not afford first class. It was during this stage of the proceedings that the managing director, Margaret Levin lost her temper and blew a fuse. She shouted to the Judge “Don’t be so bloody cheap”
Margaret Levin’s superior demeanour towards the Court and the proceedings was obvious to all who attended. Although they sought £21,000 in costs the Court answers was to award the Groucho the poultry sum of £220 in costs. This was a severe kick in the teeth for the Groucho Club as Margaret Levin’s haughtiness had now cost the Groucho Club dearly
I think what we all forget is that Murphy is one man, a litigant in person who has taken on a very powerful media club and its owner corporation, He has succeeded in the libel case where others have failed and has had he guts to see it through to the bitter end and never back off.
The Groucho Club are in trouble once again!
A hearing is now scheduled for a employment tribunal which was taken against the Groucho club by a former high ranking employee. The employee is alleging that a manager of the club subjected him to a campaign of sexual harassment and on several occasions sexual assault.
It is alleged that there is CCTV evidence of this allegation of sexual assault floating around and may even be on you tube. Apparently this CCTV evidence was obtained by Murphy and was lodged at the Murphy V Groucho hearing in Newport County Court when Margaret Levin threw her toy out of the pram and shouted at the Judge.
The Groucho Club legal team tried to have the CCTV evidence thrown out but Murphy was adamant that this evidence formed part of his own case as it was alleged it demonstrated that the same individual concerned harassed Murphy over a period of a year and a half and lead to the famous libel trial that the Groucho lost in such a wretched and embarrassing way
There are now Rumours that Margaret Levin is now being ousted from the Groucho Club as managing director because of her handling of the whole affair with Murphy and she may be replaced by a manager from the clubs competition Soho House
Meanwhile Murphy has been actively seeking information about CCTV cameras at the Groucho and certain CCTV footage of him. He has offered £100,000 for the footage of an incident at the Groucho he was involved in on the evening the 12th June 2008 . He is also seeking information on anyone who edited the CCTV footage of this date on behalf of the Groucho Club
Murphy has uncovered information from staff about the 12.5% discretionary charges club member are subjected to when they use their credit cards at the Club. Murphy felt that members should know that most of the discretionary charge goes to the Groucho Club and the staff gets only 2.5% of the 12.5%. Murphy based this on a tronc document dated 2008 that was leaked from the club
This document says that the lion’s share of the tronc tips go to the House. The amount for the month was £21,198.37 in applicable tips. Out of this the house, the Groucho Club receives 10% of the 12% in tips which was £16,958.70. The staff got 2.5% of the 12.5% which was £4,238.
Murphy has also brought to light an incident when an outsider (not an employee of the club) accessed the new CCTV system of the Groucho Club and sent creepy e mails to reception staff informing them they were being monitored and wanted to know their names. Staff contacted Murphy so he would do something about this; He did and also contacted the Information Commissioners Office on behalf of the staff members.
It might be time for the Groucho Club to realise that Murphy is not going away nor is he giving up