Dawkins being sued for libel

madurobob said:
The blog linked to in the OP appears to exist solely to publicize the craziness of the UK libel laws and to argue for reform. From my cursory reading it sure looks like one is guilty until he can prove his innocence when it comes to libel there. One lawsuit-happy loon with a preposterously weak claim can wreak havoc.
Click to expand...

Jack of Kent (David Allen Green) is a media lawyer, and has blogged about numerous legal matters, more recently in the New Statesman than on his own site. Libel cases do certainly feature a lot. He is a forum member, but I don't think he posts here very often.

Now, I am not a lawyer, but as I understand English libel law is as follows:

If person A makes a statement about person B which B considers to be libellous and therefore sues A, A has to prove the statement was not libellous.

These cases can be quite be expensive, so it helps if you have deep pockets. Now, this bit I know little about, but I imagine if you are the plaintiff, claiming libel and you can engage a legal team on a no-win, no-fee basis then you're in a better position by default.
 
Last edited:
commandlinegamer said:
Now, I am not a lawyer, but as I understand English libel law is as follows:

If person A makes a statement about person B which B considers to be libellous and therefore sues A, A has to prove the statement was not libellous.
Click to expand...


I'm not a lawyer either, but as I understand it person B first has to establish that the statement complained of is capable of being defamatory, and if so the onus is then on person A to prove that it is true for the defence of "justification" to be upheld.
 
Last edited:
I wonder if Chris McGrath is any relation of Alister of that ilk?
Though Alister Mcgrath, while arguably very wrong on some things, seems to be at least honestly and genuinely mistaken, rather than a bit of a plonker like the aforementioned Christopher.

Does anyone know how the Dawkins v Timonen tragicomedy ended?
 
Soapy Sam said:
I wonder if Chris McGrath is any relation of Alister of that ilk?
Though Alister Mcgrath, while arguably very wrong on some things, seems to be at least honestly and genuinely mistaken, rather than a bit of a plonker like the aforementioned Christopher.

Does anyone know how the Dawkins v Timonen tragicomedy ended?
Click to expand...
According to this site, the suit was dismissed with prejudice.

Here's the court summary, confirming the suit was dismissed after a motion to do so by Dawkins' attorney:
Case Summary

Case Number: EC054190
THE RICHARD DAWKINS FOUNDATION FOR REASON VS. JOSH TIMONEN

Filing Date: 10/04/2010
Case Type: Fraud (no contract) (General Jurisdiction)
Status: Dismissed - Other 08/02/2011



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Future Hearings
None

<snip>

Proceedings Held (Proceeding dates listed in descending order)

08/02/2011 at 08:30 am in Department NCGD, David S. Milton, Presiding
Ex-parte Motion (for an Order Vacating theDismissal Without Prejudice andEntering a Dismissal WithPrejudice) - Granted

06/17/2011 at 09:45 am in Department NCGD, David S. Milton, Presiding
Motion to Compel (PLTS' FURTHER RESPONSES TO DEFS'FIRST SET OF INSPECITON DEMANDS &COMPLAINCE AS AGREED UPON; REQUESTFOR MOENTARY SANCTIONS AGST PLTS &ITS COUNSEL IN THE AMT OF $5177.50) - Motion Granted in Part

06/13/2011 at 08:30 am in Department NCGD, David S. Milton, Presiding
Ex-parte Motion (for an Extension to File aCross-Complaint) - Granted

05/06/2011 at 09:45 am in Department NCGD, David S. Milton, Presiding
Hearing on Demurrer (TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT2.MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF THESECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT3. CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE4. MOTION FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS;) - Overruled in part.

04/05/2011 at 08:30 am in Department NCGD, David S. Milton, Presiding
Conference-Case Management - Continued

01/28/2011 at 09:45 am in Department NCGD, David S. Milton, Presiding
Hearing on Demurrer (TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT) - Partly sustained, partly overruled

01/04/2011 at 08:30 am in Department NCGD, David S. Milton, Presiding
OSC-RE Other (Miscellaneous) (RE: FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH TRIAL COURT DELAY REDUCTION ACT) - Off Calendar
Click to expand...
 
commandlinegamer said:
Jack of Kent (David Allen Green) is a media lawyer, and has blogged about numerous legal matters, more recently in the New Statesman than on his own site. Libel cases do certainly feature a lot. He is a forum member, but I don't think he posts here very often.
Click to expand...

*Waves*
 
I'm Vaughan John Jones, the "Fourth Defendant" in the proceedings.

Happy to answer any burning questions but to clarify it was my words that were being complained about, not anyone else's.
 
vjohn82 said:
I'm Vaughan John Jones, the "Fourth Defendant" in the proceedings.

Happy to answer any burning questions but to clarify it was my words that were being complained about, not anyone else's.
Click to expand...

Welcome to the forum. You can say hi to those that like that sort of thing here http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=81 . You can also have some fun and get your post count up here http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=26 or here http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=28. You should find we are a mostly friendly lot.
 
vjohn82 said:
The others are being sued for publication of the words complained of. That's pretty much all I can say about the other Defendants in the case.
Click to expand...
So, it sounds like they list defendants in order of the depth of their pockets?

Worm said:
the 'Fourth Defendant' sounds like some sort of superhero.
Click to expand...
:) I just had a vision of a short graphic novel, detailing the case with our hero coming out on top. When its published, and McGrath posts a bad review on Amazon, we sue him for libel!
 
Worm said:
the 'Fourth Defendant' sounds like some sort of superhero.
Click to expand...

I'll get a t-shirt knocked up ;)

madurobob said:
So, it sounds like they list defendants in order of the depth of their pockets?


:) I just had a vision of a short graphic novel, detailing the case with our hero coming out on top. When its published, and McGrath posts a bad review on Amazon, we sue him for libel!
Click to expand...

Yes, that sounds about right. Although a number of others also received threats too (both before and after).

I think a book sounds like a great idea haha
 
I imagine Dawkins must have considerable experience of such suits. Steven Rose threatened to sue Dawkins for libel when RD described "Not in Our Genes" (Leon Kamin, Steven Rose & Richard Lewontin, 1984) as "Rose et al's paranoiac and demonological theology of science."

There must have been others. He has quite a talent for upsetting people.And he works at it.

FattyCatty- Thanks for the Timonen info.
 
madurobob said:
At any rate, under UK law, doesn't the defendant have to prove his statement was true (rather than the complainant prove the statement was false and malicious)?
Click to expand...

I don't know for sure but when I read Richard Evans' book on the David Irving/Deborah Lipstadt libel thing I seem to remember him saying that under libel law the onus is on the defendent to prove that either a) the statement is true, or b) the statement has had no effect on the reputation of the accuser or c) the accuser has no reputation to be defamed in the first place.

For example, if I wrote lots of books on quantum physics despite having absolutely no idea what I was talking about, some famous quantum physicist could say that my books were full of lies and only fit for toilet paper. The statement might not be factually true because maybe I wasn't "lying" and maybe my books were fit for more than toilet paper yet because I am a complete nobody in the world of quantum physics I won't have a case proving that I had been defamed.

Perhaps Jack of Kent could chime in instead of just waving there. :D
 
You're correct; a person's character is considered reputable/intact unless contrary evidence is asserted.

The issue with British libel laws is that the burden of proof is very high on the Defendant with the Claimant not having to do much work at all. Many cases can be settled without the need for court at all but there doesn't appear to be anything in place. Mediation is possible but often quite expensive.

The Claimant in this matter, certainly for my situation, failed to comply with any pre-action correspondence. He served the claim form on April Fools Day for goodness sakes.
 
Welcome to the forum, vjohn82. It's most unfortunate that you have been dragged into a lawsuit like this; it looks like nothing but a publicity stunt. Hopefully, it will be dismissed at the upcoming motion to strike.

Best of luck!
 
LashL said:
Welcome to the forum, vjohn82. It's most unfortunate that you have been dragged into a lawsuit like this; it looks like nothing but a publicity stunt. Hopefully, it will be dismissed at the upcoming motion to strike.

Best of luck!
Click to expand...

Thank you for your support.

It's a strange old world but hopefully common sense will prevail.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom