Freedom of political expression is one of the most sacred tenets of English law – but a judge has ruled that a UK Independence Party (UKIP) election candidate may have over-stepped the mark when she accused three Labour MPs of turning a blind eye to widespread sexual abuse of children in their area.
The MPs sued the UKIP candidate for slander and libel in respect of a speech she made to her party conference which received widespread publicity. She argued that her words had been misunderstood and could not be viewed as defamatory. Her speech was political in nature, amounted to an expression of opinion and did not contain any factual allegations which brought the MPs into disrepute.
However, following a preliminary hearing, the judge found that the words spoken were potentially defamatory. Reasonable listeners would have understood them to mean, amongst other things, that – for reasons of political correctness, selfishness and cowardice – the MPs had chosen not to intervene to save a large number of children from abuse and that they were just as culpable as the perpetrators.
The judge noted that the law had always accommodated the trenchant expression of political views; however, there were limits to the protection which should be afforded to allegations made against individuals in political speeches. He emphasised that it had yet to be decided whether the UKIP candidate’s allegations were defensible and whether her words were in fact defamatory.