This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/mar/11/scottish-green-msp-wins-defamation-case

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Scottish Green MSP wins defamation case Scottish Green MSP successfully defends defamation case
(about 4 hours later)
Wildcat expert claimed Andy Wightman harmed plans to raise funds for Highlands sanctuary Wildcat expert claimed Andy Wightman harmed his plans to raise funds for Highlands sanctuary
A Scottish Green party MSP has won a defamation action over two blogposts that raised doubts about a business selling tiny plots of land in the Highlands. A Scottish Green party MSP has successfully defended a defamation action over two blogposts that raised doubts about a business selling tiny plots of land in the Highlands.
Lord Clark, a judge in Edinburgh, threw out a £750,000 claim for damages brought by Dr Paul O’Donoghue, an expert in wildcats, who claimed Andy Wightman had harmed his plans to raise funds for a wildcat sanctuary in the Highlands.Lord Clark, a judge in Edinburgh, threw out a £750,000 claim for damages brought by Dr Paul O’Donoghue, an expert in wildcats, who claimed Andy Wightman had harmed his plans to raise funds for a wildcat sanctuary in the Highlands.
Wightman, a land rights expert and a Green MSP, wrote several blogposts in 2015 that raised questions about a business run by O’Donoghue, Wildcat Haven Enterprises, which was linked to a firm selling small plots of land claiming buyers could call themselves a Highland laird or lady. Wightman, a land rights expert and a Green MSP, wrote several blogposts in 2015 raising questions about a business run by O’Donoghue, Wildcat Haven Enterprises, which was linked to a firm selling small plots of land and claiming that buyers could call themselves a Highland laird or lady.
Wightman said the company that held those plots was ultimately owned in the Channel Islands and questioned whether it was true that people who bought the souvenir plots did in fact have legal title to any land.Wightman said the company that held those plots was ultimately owned in the Channel Islands and questioned whether it was true that people who bought the souvenir plots did in fact have legal title to any land.
In his judgment rejecting O’Donoghue’s claims, Clark said Wightman’s blogpost “stated that Wildcat Haven had adopted Highland Title’s dubious methods of selling small souvenir plots of land and claiming that the purchaser became the owner.In his judgment rejecting O’Donoghue’s claims, Clark said Wightman’s blogpost “stated that Wildcat Haven had adopted Highland Title’s dubious methods of selling small souvenir plots of land and claiming that the purchaser became the owner.
“Reference was then made to a letter from a university law professor to a newspaper, which explained the legal position in relation to ownership of souvenir plots.”“Reference was then made to a letter from a university law professor to a newspaper, which explained the legal position in relation to ownership of souvenir plots.”
O’Donoghue, who has campaigned to create sanctuaries for wildcats, lynx and golden eagles around the UK, claimed Wightman’s blogposts, some subsequent tweets and a Facebook post, were false and defamatory. He said Wightman was also motivated by malice.O’Donoghue, who has campaigned to create sanctuaries for wildcats, lynx and golden eagles around the UK, claimed Wightman’s blogposts, some subsequent tweets and a Facebook post, were false and defamatory. He said Wightman was also motivated by malice.
O’Donoghue, who had no legal representation in court, told Lord Clark last year that Wightman’s blogpost was instrumental in a deal he was chasing to buy some Forestry Commission land in the Highlands falling through. O’Donoghue, who had no legal representation in court, told Lord Clark last year that Wightman’s blogpost was instrumental in the collapse of a deal he was chasing to buy some Forestry Commission land in the Highlands.
He also claimed the number of souvenir plots being sold plummeted after Wightman’s blogs were published.He also claimed the number of souvenir plots being sold plummeted after Wightman’s blogs were published.
In a case followed closely by media freedom campaigners, Wightman denied his blog led to plot sales falling. Clark said Wightman told the court it was “honest comment on matters of public interest, conveying his opinions, honestly held by him.” The facts he printed were accurate and fully sourced. In a case followed closely by media freedom campaigners, Wightman denied that his blog led to plot sales falling. Clark said Wightman told the court it was “honest comment on matters of public interest, conveying his opinions, honestly held by him”. The facts he printed were accurate and fully sourced.
Clark said O’Donoghue was right that Wightman’s blogposts made defamatory claims by suggesting the land sales were dubious and immoral, but were legally defensible as fair comment and as matters of public interest.Clark said O’Donoghue was right that Wightman’s blogposts made defamatory claims by suggesting the land sales were dubious and immoral, but were legally defensible as fair comment and as matters of public interest.
Clark also said he found it impossible to agree that Highland Titles, which owned the plots of land, had lost any money as a result of Wightman’s blogposts and tweets because there was no evidence it had done so.Clark also said he found it impossible to agree that Highland Titles, which owned the plots of land, had lost any money as a result of Wightman’s blogposts and tweets because there was no evidence it had done so.
The court will decide whether O’Donoghue has to pay Wightman’s costs, understood to total £150,000, at a later hearing.The court will decide whether O’Donoghue has to pay Wightman’s costs, understood to total £150,000, at a later hearing.
Wightman, who became an MSP in May 2016, launched a crowd-funding campaign to help meet the costs of fighting the case, and said he was delighted he had won. He said it was vital the Scottish parliament modernised defamation law to properly balance freedom of expression against the right to protect reputations. Wightman, who became an MSP in May 2016, launched a crowdfunding campaign to help meet the costs of fighting the case, and said he was delighted he had won. He said it was vital that the Scottish parliament modernised defamation law to properly balance freedom of expression against the right to protect reputations.
“It is also important that the law is clear, so that writers and journalists can write confidently and provide the freedom of expression that is so important in any democracy,” he said.“It is also important that the law is clear, so that writers and journalists can write confidently and provide the freedom of expression that is so important in any democracy,” he said.
A spokesman for Wildcat Haven Enterprises said it would appeal against the decision. “It is baffling to us as lay people that Mr Wightman, an MSP, can be found by a judge to have made multiple untrue statements, and made defamatory statements, yet is found not guilty of defamation because of a legal technicality,” he said. A spokesman for Wildcat Haven Enterprises said it would appeal against the ruling. “It is baffling to us as laypeople that Mr Wightman, an MSP, can be found by a judge to have made multiple untrue statements, and made defamatory statements, yet is found not guilty of defamation because of a legal technicality,” he said.