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 http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/nov/27/pleb-andrew-mitchell-loses-libel-case

The article has changed 3 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Judge rules Andrew Mitchell probably did use ‘politically toxic’ word pleb Andrew Mitchell loses Plebgate libel case
(about 1 hour later)
Former chief whip Andrew Mitchell has been ordered to pay £300,000 in costs after he lost his high court libel action over the Plebgate incident. Andrew Mitchell, the Tory MP and former cabinet minister at the centre of the Plebgate row lost his high court libel case on Thursday in a ruling which sees him facing a legal bill of millions of pounds and leaves his political career in tatters.
Outside the court, Mitchell told reporters he was bitterly disappointed with the ruling and that it had been “a miserable two years” for him, but that he now hoped to move on with his life.Outside the court, Mitchell told reporters he was bitterly disappointed with the ruling and that it had been “a miserable two years” for him, but that he now hoped to move on with his life.
He had sued News Group Newspapers (NGN) over a September 2012 story in the Sun which claimed he had launched an offensive and arrogant attack on Downing Street police officers who refused to allow him to cycle through the main vehicle gates, branding them “fucking plebs”.He had sued News Group Newspapers (NGN) over a September 2012 story in the Sun which claimed he had launched an offensive and arrogant attack on Downing Street police officers who refused to allow him to cycle through the main vehicle gates, branding them “fucking plebs”.
NGN based its report, which it said was substantially true, on the account given in his log by PC Toby Rowland. The Sun based its report on the account given in his log by PC Toby Rowland.
Giving his ruling, Mr Justice Mitting said: “For the reasons given I am satisfied at least on the balance of probabilities that Mr Mitchell did speak the words alleged or something so close to them as to amount to the same including the politically toxic word pleb.” The judge, Mr Justice Mitting, told the court: “For the reasons given, I’m satisfied, at least on the balance of probabilities that Mr Mitchell did speak the words attributed to him, or so close to them as to amount to the same, the politically toxic word pleb.”
The officer claimed statements made by the 58-year-old MP for Sutton Coldfield from December 2012 onwards falsely suggested he had fabricated his allegations. In his judgment at the end of the £3m joint libel trial, Mitting described PC Toby Rowland, the police officer who claimed the MP had used the word, as a “rather old fashioned police officer” who was “well-suited to his job” as a member of the Diplomatic Protection Group, and that he believed him.
But Mitchell, who resigned as whip a month after the altercation, denied saying: “Best you learn your fucking place – you don’t run this fucking government – you’re fucking plebs.” “He is not the sort of man who had the wit, the imagination or the inclination” to “invent in the spur of the moment what a senior cabinet minister would have said to him” Mitting said, in a ruling which took over two hours.
He said he would never call a police officer a pleb “let alone a fucking pleb” – though he agreed he muttered: “I thought you lot were supposed to fucking help us” – but not at the officer. Neither, Mitting said, did Rowland have the inclination to “perform the pantomime which the invention would require”.
After the ruling, in courtroom 13 of the Royal Court of Justice in London, Rowland said that he had tried “everything possible” to stop the need for legal action.
“Even before this trial began I had been cleared of any wrongdoing by four extensive and wide-reaching investigations including a criminal one. I am delighted that here again my innocence, integrity and reputation as a police officer has been recognised.”
The joint libel suit began after an altercation between the police officer and the politician at the gates of Downing Street on 19 September 2012, as the MP demanded to be allowed to cycle through the main gates.
Mitchell sued the News Group Newspapers over a story that appeared in the Sun on 21 September 2012, in which Mitchell was alleged to have called Rowland a “fucking pleb”. The MP denied using the words attributed to him. Rowland then sued Mitchell, for accusing him of lying.
Mitting described the MP’s behaviour as “childish” and found his version of events was inconsistent with the CCTV recording from that evening.
He said, of Mitchell: “I’m satisfied that he did lose his temper” and that the MP’s admission that he was “ill-tempered” but did not lose his temper was splitting hairs.
He added that gaps and inconsistencies in PC Rowland’s account did not demonstrate he fabricated his account, as Mitchell’s lawyers had claimed.
If he was making up his account, PC Rowland would have had to have come up with the words within seconds, according to the judge.
The libel trial, conducted over eight days in the royal court of justice, was a preliminary one to decide on what happened at the gate,
The judge has said there will be a 14-day grace period for all parties to digest his ruling and decide on what action to take.
Mitchell was asked to pay £300,000 costs, split between the parties, by 3 January 2015. Further costs were to be discussed.
Mitchell had been in a hurry to get to the Carlton Club that evening and was expecting to be let through as he had been without difficulty that morning and after lunch. He thought it “extremely odd” when Rowland issued him with a warning under the Public Order Act, but apologised to the officer for his language the next day.Mitchell had been in a hurry to get to the Carlton Club that evening and was expecting to be let through as he had been without difficulty that morning and after lunch. He thought it “extremely odd” when Rowland issued him with a warning under the Public Order Act, but apologised to the officer for his language the next day.
Mitchell agreed that the chief whip’s role required a mixture of charm and menace and that he could occasionally be abrasive, but said he did not merit the “extraordinary tsunami of vitriol which descended on my head over a prolonged period of time”.Mitchell agreed that the chief whip’s role required a mixture of charm and menace and that he could occasionally be abrasive, but said he did not merit the “extraordinary tsunami of vitriol which descended on my head over a prolonged period of time”.
His counsel, James Price QC, said a “web of lies, deceit and indiscipline” by police officers led to a press campaign and public hostility, and the version of the encounter which was leaked to the newspaper by a number of officers was “wholly false”. “In the end, the lies brought Mr Mitchell down, destroying a political career of 27 years,” he said.His counsel, James Price QC, said a “web of lies, deceit and indiscipline” by police officers led to a press campaign and public hostility, and the version of the encounter which was leaked to the newspaper by a number of officers was “wholly false”. “In the end, the lies brought Mr Mitchell down, destroying a political career of 27 years,” he said.
Statements supplied in court by a range of people, from musician Sir Bob Geldof to painter and decorator Richard Robinson, showed he was not a “Tory toff” who would think of putting someone down because of their class, social background or occupational status by use of a “toxic and class-laden” expression like pleb.Statements supplied in court by a range of people, from musician Sir Bob Geldof to painter and decorator Richard Robinson, showed he was not a “Tory toff” who would think of putting someone down because of their class, social background or occupational status by use of a “toxic and class-laden” expression like pleb.
But Desmond Browne QC, representing Rowland, claimed Mitchell was a “Jekyll and Hyde” character whose capacity for menace found its outlet in foul temper and foul language. He said the MP was regularly let through the vehicle gates, in the face of the security policy, because of the “unpleasant fuss” he made.But Desmond Browne QC, representing Rowland, claimed Mitchell was a “Jekyll and Hyde” character whose capacity for menace found its outlet in foul temper and foul language. He said the MP was regularly let through the vehicle gates, in the face of the security policy, because of the “unpleasant fuss” he made.
Rowland said he did not know who Mitchell was when he saw the “agitated” MP having a disagreement with a fellow officer and went to speak to him. “I was perfectly calm, perfectly polite. It is quite common to have disagreements about entrances and times people can come and go.”Rowland said he did not know who Mitchell was when he saw the “agitated” MP having a disagreement with a fellow officer and went to speak to him. “I was perfectly calm, perfectly polite. It is quite common to have disagreements about entrances and times people can come and go.”
He claimed members of the public were within earshot and visibly shocked when Mitchell swore, which prompted the “correct, proportionate and very necessary” warning.
He denied that his account was an invention to “cover my arse” and justify giving a Cabinet minister a warning, maintaining that he recorded exactly what had happened while it was fresh in his mind.
In his ruling, Mr Justice Mitting said PC Rowland was “not the sort of man who would have had the wit, imagination or inclination to invent on the spur of the moment an account of what a senior politician had said to him in temper”.
The judge rejected the allegation that there was collusion by the officers on the gate that night.
Steve White, chair of the Police Federation of England and Wales, said: “We are pleased that the judge has ruled in PC Toby Rowland’s favour. Toby’s name has been cleared and his integrity restored.Steve White, chair of the Police Federation of England and Wales, said: “We are pleased that the judge has ruled in PC Toby Rowland’s favour. Toby’s name has been cleared and his integrity restored.
“Toby has conducted himself with dignity and professionalism in relation to this incident and subsequent inquiries and legal cases.“Toby has conducted himself with dignity and professionalism in relation to this incident and subsequent inquiries and legal cases.
“It is important that this incident is now brought to a close to allow Toby and his family to look to the future.”“It is important that this incident is now brought to a close to allow Toby and his family to look to the future.”