Tribal Libel

Another bizzare turn of events at the Manchester Civil Justice Centre today as the University of Salford continued to pursue their libel claim against the author(s) of the Rat Catchers of the Sewers blog.

As ever there was a strong public showing - including individuals who were either there to act as journalists or who simply had a personal preference for taking vast quantities of notes - and the "public gallery" (in reality, a few plastic seats at the back of a square room - the Civil Justice Centre is a little lacking in the 'majestical') was full to capacity.

Confusion reigned for some, as one of the more unusual members of the public turned up late and was evidently overwhelmed by the heirarchical seating arrangements of a court of law. He sought, rather than grabbing the nearest chair, to wander aimlessly until instructed (geddit?) by Ian 'Daffyd' Austin to take the seat closest to the door - probably the safest thing for all concerned.

Today's hearing was for District Judge Smith to determine whether or not to grant an order compelling Virgin Media Group to disclose the user account details associated with the IP addresses of the authors of the statements on the blog that the University claim are defamatory.

After the previous 'session', in which District Judge Smith instructed Counsel for the Claimant to supply a witness statement arguing as to the falsity of the statements under question (and there were we naively thinking falsity was presumed in English defamation proceedings?), our old friend Dr Adrian Graves duly complied with the request, supplying a virtually identical witness statement to that authored by 'Daffyd' Austin some weeks before - with the added caveat of alleging falsity.

Dr Graves is deserving of particular mention at this point, as he has achieved the almost impossible feat of amassing almost as many official roles as did Lord Mandleson in the previous Labour Government (Dr Graves is listed in University Council minutes - which he is responsible for - as 'Deputy Vice Chancellor and Registrar and Secretary', although this is not quite a match for 'Baron Mandleson of Hartlepool; First Secretary of State; Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills; Lord President of the Council; and President of the Board of Trade). 

Today's hearing was kicked off by the University's barrister, who explained that the instructing solicitor (our old friend 'Daffyd' Austin) and Virgin Media had agreed a form for the Court Order which would go unopposed by Virgin. There was then a request to extend the time limit for serving notice on the defendant (since obviously the defendant(s) remain unknown at present).

This was countered by an unending and somewhat incomprehensible rebuttal from a Mr E Longley - acting as the MacKenzie friend for Dr Gary Duke (the presumed author). His arguments seemed to revolve around three points of "law":

1) The IP addresses were 'illegally obtained' and thus should not be rendered admissable.

2) The comments complained of were not arguably false/defamatory.

3) The application to extend the time limit should be declined owing to supposed dithering on the part of the Claimant's solicitor.

Needless to say the Judge was having none of this and ruled in favour of the Claimants on the day's substantive issues, including ruling that all of the statements complained of were indeed arguably defamatory and arguably false (although there appeared to be some hesitance regarding allegations made against one of the claimants).

There was some commotion about the wording of the court order which was to be submitted to Virgin Media, with the Judge asserting that he will only approve an order which requests disclosure of the statements complained of (i.e. not indiscriminate disclosure).

The problem here was that neither the University's Solicitor or Barrister were in a position to issue assurances that the data sought in the proposed order corresponded to the author(s) of the statements complained of. Our friend Ian Austin seemed confident that the order could be revised to achieve this aim in less than 24 hours, and both the Judge and the Barrister agreed that the order could be amended so that Virgin can identify which IP addresses were responsible for the statements complained of.

There was some doubt about the technical feasibility of this proposal, as it is not routine for Internet Service Providers to retain mirrors of uploaded data from their user connections. In the event Virgin are unable to comply with this particular element of the request, one can only presume that Salford will need to go back to Automatic Inc for further information.

Whether or not Automatic Inc comply on a voluntary basis again (as before), or actually wait for a disclosure order from the Californian courts, will be very interesting to see. One imagines that the negative publicity generated as a result of their previous voluntary disclosure might discourage them from making further such disclosures.

Either way, it now seems to be just a matter of time before the author(s) is/are identified. What will become of them? In court today the University's Barrister seemed to imply that mediation would be entered in to and apologies would be sought before any judicial remedy was pursued. Whether or not this will abait the desires of the claimants to 'have their day in court' is another issue.


More to follow.