2 days ago
- Politics
- The Herald Scotland
St Mirren land dispute judgment a 'crucial precedent' for free speech
The claim for damages surrounded comments made by Mr Wardrop around the legality of an application for public funds for a regeneration project including a well-being centre on what appeared to be club land.
Lord Clark dismissed Mr Gillespie and Mr MacMillan's claim for damages, which might have amounted to £80,000 because he believed that Mr Wardrop's comments made surrounding the legality of the application in were in the public interest and were honestly held based on the evidence he had at the time - both defences under the Scottish law around defamation damages.
Campbell Deane, head of BKF and Co who represented Mr Wardrop, said: "This case sets a crucial precedent in the application of Defamation and Malicious Publication (Scotland) Act 2021, particularly the public interest defence.
READ MORE by Martin Williams
"The ruling underscores the legal protection available to individuals who responsibly raise issues of public concern – even if they are ultimately mistaken in their claims. It affirms that Scottish defamation law now balances reputation rights with the importance of free expression in democratic discourse."
Alan Wardrop (left) and St Mirren directors and Kibble execs Jim Gillespie and Mark MacMillan (Image: Damian Shields) Mr Deane represented former Scottish Labour leader Kezia Dugdale in a successful defamation case battle in 2020, an appeal case of Wings over Scotland blogger Stuart Campbell, who claimed Ms Dugdale defamed him in a newspaper column three years ago.
Mr Campbell lost the defamation case and demand for £25,000 in reputational damages at Edinburgh Sheriff Court when it was decided that while Ms Dugdale was incorrect to imply Mr Campbell was homophobic, she was protected under the principle of fair comment.
Mr Deane in the Wardrop case said it was a defence to a defamatory statement if it relates to publication of a "matter of public interest and the defender reasonably believed that publishing it was in the public interest".
He said: "This defence is designed to protect freedom of expression on issues that affect the public, so long as the individual making the statements acts responsibly, seeks to verify the facts, and is not motivated by malice. This ruling makes clear that raising concerns about governance, charity involvement, or the use of public funds can fall within the scope of public interest.
"This ruling confirms that the defender does not need to be correct in the allegations. Rather, the defender must show that their belief in the truth and public value of the statements was formed through reasonable effort.
"As the first judicial interpretation of this new defence in Scotland, the decision is likely to have a significant impact on how future public interest defences are framed."
Stuart Munro of Livingstone Brown, solicitor for Mr Gillespie and Mr MacMillan, said: 'My clients required to bring this action after Mr Wardrop wrongly accused them of having a 'secret plan' to build on land owned by St Mirren FC and of lying about it.
'They are extremely pleased the judge, having heard detailed evidence from numerous witnesses, made it clear in his written judgment that there was no such secret plan, thus setting the record straight.
'Furthermore, the judgement underlines that Mr Wardrop's very public allegations were, as my clients have consistently stated, both untrue and defamatory.
"The judge also agreed that Mr Wardrop's untrue and defamatory statements caused serious harm to their reputations.
'Notwithstanding the finding that Mr Wardrop was entitled to publish, the judge made it very clear that, the true facts having now been established, any future repetition of his claims would have serious consequences.'
Alan Wardrop (Image: .)
But Mr Wardrop said: "As a lifelong St Mirren supporter this entirely unfounded and misconceived court action has unquestionably proved difficult. To be banned from attending home football matches and have my motivations put under the spotlight, when all I was doing was trying to shine a light on a significant issue concerning St Mirren has been taxing.
"Prior to applying to join the SMISA board, I had conducted detailed investigations as to the whereabouts of the land forming part of Kibble's applications for a well-being centre. I had done this, having been met with a wall of silence from the Kibble directors of St Mirren Football Club, Jim Gillespie and Mark McMillan to my repeated requests for information."
He said he had maintained throughout the process that what he said in relation to the land dispute was "honest opinion" and what he brought into the public forum was "in the public interest".
"I am delighted, but not in any way surprised, that the court has accepted that it was in the public interest to publish what I did. The law promotes free speech, and based on all my thorough and detailed enquiries, what I wrote was clearly a statement on a matter of public interest and I believed in the public interest to publish," he said.
