Former health secretary Matt Hancock has stated that a libel claim brought against him by former Conservative MP Andrew Bridgen over a tweet "should never have been brought." The legal dispute, which reached the Court of Appeal on Wednesday, centres on a post made on social media platform X, formerly known as Twitter, in January 2023.
Background of the Case
Mr Hancock, who served as health secretary during the Covid-19 pandemic, is being sued by Mr Bridgen, the former MP for North West Leicestershire, over allegations of antisemitism in a tweet. In April of the previous year, a High Court judge ruled that Mr Bridgen's claim could proceed to trial, rejecting Mr Hancock's attempt to have the case dismissed. Mr Hancock subsequently challenged that decision at the Court of Appeal.
The Tweet in Question
On January 11, 2023, Mr Bridgen shared a story by a controversial scientist who claimed that the Covid vaccine could be the worst crime against humanity "since the Holocaust." This tweet led to Mr Bridgen losing the Conservative whip and later being expelled from the party. On the same day, Mr Hancock posted a video of himself asking a question in the House of Commons, captioned: "The disgusting and dangerous antisemitic, anti-vax, anti-scientific conspiracy theories spouted by a sitting MP this morning are unacceptable and have absolutely no place in our society."
Legal Arguments
Aidan Eardley KC, representing Mr Hancock, argued in court: "His position is that the opinion he is being sued for expressing is his honest opinion." He further noted that Mr Hancock is concerned the case might be used as a vehicle to "attack" the Covid-19 vaccination scheme, but emphasised that a public inquiry is ongoing and the court should carefully consider whether the case has a realistic prospect of success. In written submissions, Mr Eardley stated: "This is a libel claim that should never have been brought. It concerns political speech falling well within the generous limits afforded by the defence of honest opinion. Having been brought, the claim should have been dismissed summarily. The judge's failure to do so was based on serious errors of approach, which the Court of Appeal is invited to correct."
Christopher Newman, representing Mr Bridgen, countered in written submissions: "The tweet is not, on its face, antisemitic given the use of the word 'since' and all known definitions of antisemitism. At the heart of this appeal lies Mr Hancock's attempt to avoid that conclusion, which is arguably fatal to his defence in these proceedings, by advancing two contentions which can be shown to be wrong by reference to documents filed in the course of proceedings." He added that Mr Hancock was "simply wrong" in his contentions that there is considerable uncertainty as to what antisemitism means because of the existence of a number of definitions.
Next Steps
Lady Justice King, Lord Justice Warby, and Lady Justice Whipple will deliver their written ruling at a later date. The outcome of this appeal will determine whether the libel claim proceeds to trial or is dismissed.
