Hancock post about unnamed MP ‘expression of opinion’, High Court rules

For free real time breaking news alerts sent straight to your inbox sign up to our breaking news emails

Sign up to our free breaking news emails

Please enter a valid email address

Please enter a valid email address

SIGN UP

I would like to be emailed about offers, events and updates from The Independent. Read our privacy policy

A social media post by Matt Hancock where he labelled an unnamed MP’s “conspiracy theories” on Covid vaccination as antisemitic was “essentially an expression” of his opinion, a High Court judge has ruled.

The former health minister is being sued for libel by former North West Leicestershire MP Andrew Bridgen over the post on X, formerly Twitter, in January last year.

The post came after Mr Bridgen shared a link to an article “concerning data about deaths and other adverse reactions linked to Covid vaccines”, stating: “As one consultant cardiologist said to me, this is the biggest crime against humanity since the Holocaust.”

Hours later, Mr Hancock shared a video of himself asking Prime Minister Rishi Sunak a question in the House of Commons, with the caption: “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.”

At a hearing earlier this month at the High Court in London, Mrs Justice Collins Rice was asked to decide several preliminary issues in the case, including the “natural and ordinary” meaning of Mr Hancock’s post and whether it was a statement of fact or opinion.

Whether the post referred to Mr Bridgen or not is to be decided at a trial to be held at a later date.

In a ruling on Monday, Mrs Justice Collins Rice said the post was not “definitively condemning the MP as an individual” and that the majority of the publication was an “expression of opinion”.

The judge added: “A reader of tweets like this knows and expects they are tuning in to robust and opinionated reactive political comment.

“They would readily understand that Mr Hancock was calling out the promulgation of material in another’s comment, what the MP had said and how they had said it, as objectionable from the perspective of public health and standards of public discourse, rather than definitively condemning the MP as an individual.

She continued: “I am satisfied the ordinary reasonable reader would not have understood this tweet in the terms Mr Bridgen most fears.

“I am satisfied they would readily have understood it to be essentially an expression of Mr Hancock’s opinions, and, as regards the epithet ‘antisemitic’ along with all the other epithets, to be referable to the MP’s mode of expression rather than the MP’s character or convictions.”

Christopher Newman, for Mr Bridgen, previously told the court that the “very, very damaging” post alleged that he was “an antisemite” and reduced his standing to a “devastating extent”.

Aidan Eardley KC, representing Mr Hancock, argued that the post meant Mr Bridgen had “disseminated views that were antisemitic in nature” and did not concern Mr Bridgen’s “general character or belief system”.

In her judgment, Mrs Justice Collins Rice said: “I am satisfied that the ordinary reasonable reader would, in the context of the whole tweet, have no difficulty in understanding they were being told Mr Hancock’s strong opinions about the character, or mode of expression, of what had been said, rather than any facts, or even opinions, about the convictions, beliefs or intentions of the unnamed MP in this respect.”

Mr Bridgen, who is standing as an independent candidate in the North West Leicestershire constituency, previously said he wished to “clear his name” after the “malicious” post.

Mr Hancock, who has stepped down as an MP, has previously called the case “absurd” and labelled Mr Bridgen’s claims “ridiculous”.

The PA news agency understands Mr Hancock is “delighted” by Monday’s judgment.

Speaking to PA after the ruling, Mr Bridgen said: “I am delighted that the case is moving forward and that the judge has acknowledged that accusing someone of spouting antisemitism is extremely grave and damaging.

“I look forward at long last to Mr Hancock putting in a defence, which he has not done.”