Former Corbyn aide loses enchantment over Rachel Riley Twitter row

0
46


A

former aide to Jeremy Corbyn has misplaced an enchantment towards a Excessive Court docket libel ruling which ordered her to pay £10,000 damages to tv presenter Rachel Riley after a Twitter row.

Ms Riley, 36, who seems on the Channel 4 present Countdown, received a declare towards Laura Murray, who’s in her early 30s and used to work for the previous Labour chief, in December final 12 months.

Mr Justice Nicklin rejected Ms Murray’s defences of fact, trustworthy opinion, and publication on matter of public curiosity and awarded damages to Ms Riley, saying she was entitled to “vindication”.

Ms Murray challenged that ruling on the Court docket of Enchantment in July, however her enchantment was dismissed by three senior judges in a ruling delivered on Thursday.

Laura Murray arrives on the Royal Courts of Justice / PA Wire

Through the trial final 12 months, Mr Justice Nicklin heard each ladies posted tweets after Mr Corbyn, who was then Labour chief, was hit with an egg whereas visiting a mosque in March 2019.

Ms Riley posted a screenshot of a January 2019 tweet by Guardian columnist Owen Jones about an assault on former British Nationwide Occasion chief Nick Griffin, which stated: “I feel sound life recommendation is, for those who don’t need eggs thrown at you, don’t be a Nazi.”

She added “Good recommendation”, with emojis of a crimson rose and an egg.

Later, Ms Murray tweeted: “Right this moment Jeremy Corbyn went to his native mosque for Go to My Mosque Day, and was attacked by a Brexiteer.

“Rachel Riley tweets that Corbyn deserves to be violently attacked as a result of he’s a Nazi. This girl is as harmful as she is silly. No person ought to interact along with her. Ever.”

Ms Riley stated she was being sarcastic in her tweet, didn’t name Mr Corbyn a Nazi, and advised the decide that Ms Murray’s tweet induced critical hurt to her repute.

Rachel Riley with Countdown co-stars Anne Robinson and Susie Dent (Rachel Joseph/Channel 4/PA) / PA Media

Mr Justice Nicklin concluded that the tweet meant Ms Riley had “publicly acknowledged” Mr Corbyn had been attacked when visiting a mosque; that he “deserved to be violently attacked”; by doing so she had proven herself to be a “harmful and silly individual” who “risked inciting illegal violence”; and that folks mustn’t “interact along with her”.

He discovered that Ms Riley had demonstrated that Ms Murray’s tweet had induced critical hurt to her repute, and in addition stated each ladies had been truthful within the proof they gave and had performed their finest to “help the court docket”.

Mr Justice Nicklin stated there was an “aspect of provocation” in Ms Riley’s “good recommendation” tweet.

“Though posting the nice recommendation tweet couldn’t be described as ‘dangerous conduct’ of the claimant, it correctly falls to be characterised as provocative, even mischievous,” he stated in a written ruling.

“It was calculated to impress a response and it did.”

Ms Riley, who studied arithmetic at Oxford College and is on maternity go away from Countdown after giving start in November, had advised the decide she is Jewish and has a “hatred of antisemitism”.

She stated she speaks out towards antisemitism and thought the Corbyn-led Labour Occasion was “fostering antisemitism”.

Ms Murray was stakeholder supervisor in Mr Corbyn’s workplace when he was Labour chief, and went on to be the occasion’s head of complaints, earlier than going into instructing.

She argued that what she tweeted was true and mirrored her truthfully held opinions.

Mr Justice Nicklin dominated at an earlier listening to that Ms Murray’s tweet was defamatory.

Ms Murray advised the decide that her job had concerned her working with the Jewish group to “attempt to discover options to the issue of antisemitism which was turning into evident inside components of the Labour Occasion membership”.

Attorneys for Ms Murray argued that Mr Justice Nicklin was incorrect to reject her defences, saying that the “ambiguity” of Ms Riley’s preliminary tweet meant that Ms Murray’s subsequent tweet was “considerably true”.

In addition they raised objections to his rejection of the trustworthy opinion and public curiosity defences.

However, giving the lead ruling, Lord Justice Warby stated Mr Justice Nicklin was “entitled to conclude that … the defendant’s tweet was not proven to be considerably true”.

The decide, sitting with Lords Justice Dingemans and Arnold, additionally rejected Ms Murray’s different grounds of enchantment.


Supply hyperlink