
Parish councillor receives £20,000 libel bill after accusing clerk of giving him ‘the finger'
A parish councillor has been handed a £20,000 libel bill after he accused the village clerk of giving him 'the finger' during a council meeting.
Councillor Andrew Peake, 60, was sued by Dr James Miller, the clerk of Fleggburgh parish council in Norfolk, after a campaign of online abuse.
Mr Peake accused Dr Miller of being a 'dishonest, scheming, devious and threatening liar', the High Court was told.
Mr Peake insisted claims he made on his 'Fleggburgh Eye' Facebook page about Dr Miller – a Cambridge-educated academic – were truthful, accusing him among other things of secretly giving him 'the finger' during a council meeting.
The contentious 'finger'
He has now been ordered to pay £20,000 in libel damages to Dr Miller after Judge Richard Parkes KC found he had not proved any of his defamatory online statements were true.
On the contentious 'finger', the judge said it was about 'interpretation of his hand movements', with Dr Miller's elbow on the table and his finger projecting upwards next to his face.
The judge went on to say he could not find on the balance of probabilities that an 'offensive gesture' was made.
Giving judgment following a High Court trial, Judge Parkes said the village strife had been 'stoked by the ill-advised use of social media'.
Dr Miller, who lives in nearby Freethorpe, was clerk to the council from February 2019 to September 2021, while Mr Peake, an engineer, was a councillor until he resigned in April 2021.
Fleggburgh resident Mr Peake had been elected in 2017, with a mission to end what he saw as the 'obvious secret decision making' at the council by making it more open and accountable.
He also ran a Facebook page, initially named 'Andrew Peake of Fleggburgh' but later becoming 'Fleggburgh Eye', where much of the strife was made public.
'The posts complained of repeated very similar allegations over a nine-month period,' said the judge. 'They generally repeated the same allegations that Dr Miller, as clerk to Fleggburgh Parish Council, was dishonest, incompetent and threatening.'
He found that the campaign of posts were to the effect that Dr Miller was a 'fraudulent, dishonest and incompetent clerk' who had taken money for work he did not in fact carry out.
'Threatening, scheming, dishonest, devious liar'
Dr Miller said he was accused of repeatedly lying about having written the council's social media policy and of generally being a 'threatening, scheming, dishonest, devious liar.'
When sued for defamation, Mr Peake claimed the defence of 'truth' in relation to his online postings.
Ruling on the case, Judge Parkes said: 'I have seen a photograph of the alleged gesture, which shows Dr Miller with his left elbow on a table and his left hand by his face, with the second finger projecting slightly forwards.
'I do not know where Mr Peake was in relation to Dr Miller. Dr Miller denies having intended any offensive gesture, which he said would have been highly unprofessional, not to mention unwise, given that Mr Peake was filming him.
'My conclusion is that no offensive gesture was made, or at least not intentionally, even if Mr Peake believed it to have been.'
'Very strong personal dislike'
He said Mr Peake was 'plainly consumed with a very strong personal dislike of Dr Miller, which is evident in his posts'.
The judge continued: 'To him any false statement by Dr Miller was a lie; any statement capable of being regarded as a threat made him a threatening person; any error showed rank incompetence.
'As Mr Peake told me, he is on the autistic spectrum, and he tends to see issues in polarised terms of black and white.
'In my judgment, that difficulty has led him to make accusations which are not justified by the evidence which he regards as proving them.'
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Daily Mail
12 hours ago
- Daily Mail
School fees blow as judges reject challenge to Labour tax - even though they say it's discriminatory
Private school families lost their challenge to Labour 's tax on fees yesterday – but judges still branded the measure 'discriminatory'. The judgment by the High Court said the 20 per cent VAT would have a 'disproportionately prejudicial effect' on pupils with special needs. However, it also ruled Parliament still had the right to impose such a decision. Yesterday, the Boarding Schools Association said it was a 'sad day' for vulnerable pupils, adding: 'There are no winners here.' At least one of the claimants now plans to appeal. Paul Conrathe, solicitor at SinclairsLaw which represented a group of special educational needs parents, Education Not Discrimination, said 'the Government should hang its head in shame'. There was anger over the Government's insistence during the case that the tax would benefit state schools. This week it suggested that the money will now pay for housing. VAT on school fees was introduced on January 1, having been pledged in Labour's manifesto. The claim against it was brought by three groups of families and some private schools. They aimed to have the tax declared 'incompatible' with human rights laws. Yesterday's judgment, by Dame Victoria Sharp, Lord Justice Newey and Mr Justice Chamberlain, agreed that the tax was 'discriminatory' against pupils with special educational needs. It also interfered with their right to an education under the European Convention on Human Rights, they said. 'If the imposition of VAT makes the fees unaffordable, there is a significant risk that the state school to which they transfer will not provide adequately for their needs,' they added. 'The measure will have a disproportionately prejudicial effect on them.' However, they concluded Parliament had a 'broad margin of discretion in deciding how to balance the interests of those adversely affected against the interests of others who may gain from public provision funded by the money it will raise'. Many parents of special educational needs children pay fees because private schools offer better pastoral care. The Government said the court had confirmed its legislation was 'compatible with its human rights obligations'.


Belfast Telegraph
12 hours ago
- Belfast Telegraph
BBC confirms corporation will not appeal Gerry Adams libel ruling after it adds update to online article
It comes after the broadcaster updated an online article at the heart of the controversy, urging readers to be aware of the outcome of the case which found that the former Sinn Fein leader had been defamed. Mr Adams took the BBC to court over a Spotlight episode which aired in 2016 and the accompanying online article based on the programme. In a high-profile case, a jury concluded the content defamed Mr Adams (76) by featuring an anonymous source who alleged he sanctioned the 2006 murder of British agent Denis Donaldson who was also a high-ranking Sinn Fein official. This evening the BBC said: 'We have given careful consideration to the jury's decision. 'We will not be appealing its verdict, bringing this matter to a conclusion. We remain committed to public interest journalism and to serving all BBC audiences.' The verdict was delivered in the High Court in Dublin last month along with the decision to award the successful claimant €100,000 (£84,000). Jurors determined that the allegation — which Mr Adams has always denied — in the programme and online story was damaging to Mr Adams' reputation. The jury concluded that the BBC did not act in good faith nor in a fair and reasonable way. The corporation was then ordered to pay Mr Adams' legal costs. The combined bill for both parties is estimated to be between €3-5m (£2.5-4.2m), according to sources with knowledge of the case. Speaking tonight, Mr Adams said the decision should be accompanied with 'a substantial reform' of the BBC's internal journalistic processes along with an acknowledgement that 'it cannot continue to be a voice for the British state in Ireland'. 'It must also become more accountable to the public,' he continued in a statement. 'There is an onus on the BBC to ensure that in the future its ethics and journalism reflect the principles and values of a public broadcast service. 'As I have already said the damages will be donated to good causes.' The offending online article remains on the BBC News website, however an update has been added. The update, alongside a link to reporting of the defamation case, states: 'In 2017 Gerry Adams commenced defamation proceedings in the Republic of Ireland against the BBC in respect of the article below and the BBC programme 'Spy in the IRA' upon which the article is based. 'In May 2025 a jury in the High Court in Dublin, Ireland, found in favour of Mr Adams and awarded him €100,000 (£84,000) in damages. 'A link to the BBC's reporting of the outcome of Gerry Adams' libel case, which should be read in conjunction with this update, is here.' It comes after the Taoiseach promised that defamation laws in the Republic will be changed as quickly as the Irish Government can achieve it. Earlier this week Micheal Martin praised the BBC reporter at the centre of the case, Jennifer O'Leary, as 'first-class'. 'I think the defamation laws need to be changed — we're going to change them,' he said. The Taoiseach vowed that the Government in Dublin would pass the legislation 'as quickly as we can' adding: 'I think we do need to get it through to create a balanced environment for commentary and for investigative journalism'. BBC NI director Adam Smyth previously warned of 'profound' implications of libel action as he expressed disappointment over the outcome. 'As our legal team made clear, if the BBC's case cannot be won under existing Irish defamation law, it's hard to see how anyone's could — and they warned that today's decision could hinder freedom of expression,' he said after the verdict. Meanwhile Ms O'Leary insisted she had entered the witness box with 'nothing to hide, only sources to protect' as she thanked them for trusting her. The BBC's legal team was granted a stay in the payment of the full award and initially said it was taking time to consider an appeal.


Daily Record
12 hours ago
- Daily Record
Decision to pull cops from duty over Tallia Storm photo 'sparked fury among colleagues'
The decision to permanently withdraw Mr Jones and Mr Tunnock sent "shockwaves" through the force, a tribunal has heard. A Police Scotland inspector has said the decision to permanently withdraw two firearm officers after they posed for a photo with a pop singer has sent "shockwaves" through the force. On June 13, Inspector Andrew Miller told the Edinburgh Employment Tribunal that the force's reaction to the incident was "disproportionate" and left colleagues furious, reports Edinburgh Live. Firearms officers Steven Jones and Greg Tunnock were withdrawn from the firearms unit after they were filmed taking pictures with Scottish singer Tallia Storm on the job. They argued that the incident was branded "misogynistic" by bosses, claiming the "knee-jerk" withdrawal decision was made to mitigate bad publicity. Speaking to the tribunal on Friday, Mr Miller admitted he believed the officers ' treatment "may not be proportionate to the circumstances." Mr Miller said: "I didn't believe their actions were misogynistic. I was aware it could be interpreted as misogynistic [by the public]. I didn't believe that was the case, but it could be interpreted that way by others." He later stated: "We had to be aware how the public would view this." Miller, who's spent nearly three decades in the job, said he had "never seen" a "critical decision taken like this" so quickly in his 27 years of police service. The inspector said the decision to permanently withdraw Mr Jones and Mr Tunnock sent "shockwaves" through the force and that " officers were enraged at the action" taken against their colleagues. Mr Miller added: "If we take a step back, it was ultimately a photograph" and he "had concerns the punishment may not be proportionate to the circumstances". The tribunal also heard reference to the Rhona Malone case, where the former firearms officer was awarded almost £1 million in 2019 after being victimised on the basis of sex by Police Scotland. Mr Miller claimed Police Scotland had done a lot of combat misogyny since 2019 but he was aware senior management "still talk" about the case. The inspector added: "I felt the outcome from the ACC was made too quick and should have followed, in my experience, normal process", such as the conclusion of an investigation by the Professional Standards Department (PSD). Mr Tunnock earlier told the hearing that Insp Miller warned him "the last thing the firearms unit needs is another misogyny case". Mr Miller claimed on Friday "that is how it would be viewed" by management. Join the Daily Record WhatsApp community! Get the latest news sent straight to your messages by joining our WhatsApp community today. You'll receive daily updates on breaking news as well as the top headlines across Scotland. No one will be able to see who is signed up and no one can send messages except the Daily Record team. All you have to do is click here if you're on mobile, select 'Join Community' and you're in! If you're on a desktop, simply scan the QR code above with your phone and click 'Join Community'. We also treat our community members to special offers, promotions, and adverts from us and our partners. If you don't like our community, you can check out any time you like. To leave our community click on the name at the top of your screen and choose 'exit group'. If you're curious, you can read our Privacy Notice. However, under questioning from Police Scotland's lawyer, Mr Gibson, Mr Miller agreed with assistant chief constable Ritchie's assertion on June 12 that Ms Storm's gender was irrelevant to the withdrawal decision. He also said his concerns about management's perception of misogyny were "unfounded" given that the officers were struck off for "poor judgement, decision-making, and situational awareness". Mr Miller also criticised the officers for their decision-making, saying: "There was acknowledgement [from the officers] that this wasn't the best thing they'd ever done. They need to have a degree of professional awareness that they were being filmed. It just doesn't look good." The proceedings are presided over by Employment Judge Amanda Jones. The five-day hearing began on Monday, June 9 and was scheduled to conclude on Friday, June 13.