A SHERIFF ruled that “the facts must be heard” as he rejected an attempt by Kezia Dugdale to have Stuart Campbell’s defamation action thrown out.
The pro-independence blogger, who runs the Wings Over Scotland site, is suing the former Scottish Labour leader for £25,000 in damages, accusing her of “defamatory innuendo”.
Dugdale now faces a court battle over the comments in her Daily Record column last March, in which she wrote that one of his tweets was “homophobic”.
Campbell’s tweet read: “Oliver Mundell is the sort of public speaker that makes you wish his dad had embraced his homosexuality sooner.”
Dugdale’s “fair and honest comment” defence included bizarre comparisons being made to other possible tweets.
It argued: "If, as the pursuer claimed, his intent in publishing the Tweet, was to highlight his view that Oliver Mundell was an appalling public speaker and that 'had Oliver Mundell not been born, the pursuer would not have to listen to his speech' he could have said this in so many different equally caustic ways without referencing his father’s sexuality, e.g. by expressing regret that the speaker’s mother did not abort him when carrying him, or that his father had not undergone a vasectomy or his mother a hysterectomy before the speaker was conceived. Instead he chose to reference the sexuality of the speaker’s father because he thought that was funny, suitable as something to be laughed at or about."
However, Sheriff McGowan ruled that while Dugdale had not explicitly accused Campbell of being a homophobe, the pursuer’s case that the innuendo could be drawn from the words used must be heard.
In a written judgment, which you can read in full by clicking here, he explained: “I am not saying that the defender defamed the pursuer. I am simply saying that as a matter of law, the words used may carry the defamatory meaning complained of by the pursuer.
“Accordingly, on this issue the pursuer is entitled to an evidential hearing to establish the facts. It will be a matter for whoever hears the evidence to determine whether the words used did as a matter of fact bear that defamatory meaning, taking account of the circumstances and the other lines of defence taken.”
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel