Report comment

Please fill in the form to report an unsuitable comment. Please state which comment is of concern and why. It will be sent to our moderator for review.

Comment

K. CROSSLAND v UNIVERSITY OF GLAMORGAN [2011] EWHC 2809 (QB)

This judgment is available on bailii.

It cannot be helpful as to costs if our judges are discriminatory. The above claim was in defamation. If the defendant was found to have behaved improperly, then that would have destroyed qualified privilege, and the case would not have been struck out.

This is what the Nicol J said at para 82 of his judgment;

82. “The Claimant alleged that the first publication of which he complains was searching for a way of excluding him that would avoid liability under the Disability Discrimination Act. But it is not improper for an institution such as the University to take advice from its Equalities Manager as to the impact of legislation such as the DDA and courses of action which might be adopted which would not attract liability. Likewise, there is nothing improper in the Equalities Manager responding to such a request.”

The above quote, perhaps, does not jump out as being discriminatory, but if the words concerning disability discrimination are substituted to be related to racial discrimination, then the discriminatory sentiment behind these words become more obvious. That passage can be written as;

“The Claimant alleged that the first publication of which he complains was searching for a way of excluding him that would avoid liability under the Racial Discrimination Act, i.e. because the Claimant is black (or disabled, as the case may be). The University wishes to exclude the Claimant because of the colour of his skin, (or because he is diabetic and had a hypoglycaemic episode), says the Claimant. But, it is not improper for an institution such as the University to take a course of action which would not attract liability, even if the real reason they wanted to be rid of him is because he is black (or disabled). They are perfectly entitled to ask advice on a course of action that would not attract liability, even if the real reason is discriminatory, i.e. because he is black (or disabled).”

Nicol J was discriminatory. Had he found that it was improper for the University to look for other reasons for excluding the Claimant, even though these reasons could not have been the real reason, because the real reason was because the claimant had a hypoglycaemic episode on a count of his diabetes, the claim would not have been struck out.

Another irregularity in this case, but not the only one, is that the claimant asked for the claim to be reopened because the Order of Rimer LJ was not complied with in the Court of Appeal because the bench did not comprise of a judge with “experience in defamation law”, and/or it was bias. Either way it deferred to Nicol J’s opinion. The supervising judge in the Court of Appeal was Richards LJ. But, Richards LJ was also the judge who assessed whether the case should be reopened. He, effectively oversaw the appointment of the bench and judged whether he was wrong in those appointments. He was not impartial.

Is anyone out there experience in defamation? An application for this case is about to be submitted to the ECtHR. I need a pro-bono Opinion of all the Article 6 and 14 rights that were violated in this case and whether or not the case was strong in defamation law and evidence. Please help. contact me on keith_crossland@hotmail.co.uk

Your details

Cancel