Readers and supporters of the Wings Over Scotland blog are to be asked by its creator Stuart Campbell about whether or not he should appeal against the sheriff’s verdict in his defamation case against former Labour leader Kezia Dugdale.
Campbell had sued Dugdale after she alleged in her newspaper column a tweet he had made was homophobic in nature. The case went to court to prove that Campbell was not homophobic, which the judge accepted.
Earlier this week, Sheriff Nigel Ross issued a written judgment saying that Dugdale was “incorrect” to imply that Campbell was homophobic, but he said her article was protected under the principle of fair comment.
He said that she did not have to pay damages and also said that if he had found in Campbell’s favour, the damages would have been assessed at £100.
Campbell blogged on Wings yesterday about the case and the reaction to it. He confirmed he was taking legal advice about an appeal.
Campbell wrote: “Most of the on-the-spot media reporting of the judgment in our court case against Kezia Dugdale on Wednesday was pretty fair and straightforward news coverage. The majority of pieces accurately and prominently mentioned the fact that the sheriff had found that I wasn’t a homophobe and that Dugdale’s article in the Daily Record which had claimed that I was WAS both untrue and defamatory.
“(Some readers objected to headlines claiming that Dugdale had been “victorious”, but the strict legal fact is that she had).”
Many supporters have urged Campbell to appeal against the verdict that Dugdale’s statements were ‘fair comment’ which in turn has prompted the blogger to ask if he should go ahead with an appeal. Legal experts say an appeal would almost certainly have to go before either the Sheriff Appeal Court (Civil) or a senior judge in the Court of Session. Indeed, an appeal against a lost defamation case was dismissed by the Sheriff Appeal Court earlier this month.
READ MORE: Wings Over Scotland defamation case against Kezia Dugdale rejected by court
Complicating the issue is that Sheriff Ross has not yet awarded the considerable costs of the case against either party.
Campbell wrote: “As things stand, were Dugdale to be awarded her costs as well as us paying our own, the Wings Fighting Fund could take a very significant hit (quite possibly into six figures), and an appeal, if undertaken and lost, would push that sum higher still.
“Depending on the advice received, we’ll put the decision to you, our readers, on how to move forward. If an appeal is launched, we’ll almost certainly need to conduct a crowdfunder, although we’re overdue for one of those anyway (this year’s should have happened last month, but we’ve been working for free while waiting for Brexit developments to provide a bit of clarity on the political future).
“If your view on the basis of the legal advice is that we should accept Wednesday’s decision and move on, that’s what we’ll do. If you want us to keep fighting for the rights of normal people not to be falsely accused and abused by the powerful and wealthy without any recourse, we’ll fight.”
Dugdale has said the verdict was an “important judgement for the right to free speech and a healthy press”, adding : “This ruling clearly demonstrates that every citizen is entitled to make comments as long as they are fair and reflect honestly held views.”
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