High Court Rules that Matt Hancock’s Tweet Promoting ‘Conspiracy Theory’ is Defamatory

The High Court has determined that a tweet from former Conservative health minister Matt Hancock, in which he labeled an ‘unnamed MP’ as ‘antisemitic,’ constituted defamation under common law. The case will proceed to trial at a later date.

The ruling on preliminary issues related to libel was announced on Monday after former North West Leicestershire MP Andrew Bridgen took legal action against a social media post by former Health Secretary Matt Hancock on Jan. 11, 2023.

Mr. Hancock’s post came in response to Mr. Bridgen sharing an article about data related to Covid vaccines, with a caption that quoted a consultant cardiologist as saying it was “the biggest crime against humanity since the Holocaust.”

Later that day, Mr. Hancock shared a video clip of himself in Parliament, asking Prime Minister Rishi Sunak to condemn the comments made by the MP, referring to them as “disgusting and dangerous antisemitic, anti-vax, anti-science, conspiracy theories.”

While parliamentarians in the House of Commons and House of Lords are protected from libel claims in court under parliamentary privilege, this protection does not extend to comments made in the public domain.

In her ruling, Mrs. Justice Collins Rice stated that the post contained both statements of fact and expressions of opinion.

Mrs. Justice Rice determined that the post had a defamatory nature under common law and could potentially harm Mr. Bridgen’s reputation.

She explained, “To describe speech as antisemitic is to deem it highly offensive, falling below the standards expected in our society; this would lead people to have a significantly negative view of the speaker.”

However, she also noted that readers of such tweets typically expect strong, opinionated political commentary.

She stated, “I am convinced that an ordinary, reasonable reader would not interpret this tweet in the way Mr. Bridgen fears the most.”

Christopher Newman, representing Mr. Bridgen, emphasized the damaging impact of the post, claiming it labeled his client as an antisemite and severely undermined his reputation.

On the other hand, Aidan Eardley, KC, representing Mr. Hancock, argued that the post suggested Mr. Bridgen had espoused antisemitic views rather than reflecting on his character or beliefs.

In her judgment, Mrs. Justice Rice clarified that the tweet aimed to criticize the content and manner in which certain comments were made rather than making definitive statements about the beliefs or intentions of the MP in question.

Mr. Bridgen, currently running as an independent candidate in North West Leicestershire, expressed a desire to clear his name following the “malicious” post.

Mr. Hancock, who has since resigned as an MP, dismissed the case as “absurd” and rejected Mr. Bridgen’s claims as “ridiculous.”

Following the ruling, Mr. Bridgen expressed satisfaction that the case would proceed and acknowledged the seriousness of accusing someone of antisemitism.

He added, “I eagerly await Mr. Hancock’s defense, which he has yet to provide.”

The court will now set out guidelines for the further development of the legal proceedings.

PA Media contributed to this report.