Matt Hancock libel row with former MP over social media post continues in court
Matt Hancock has told the Court of Appeal that the libel claim against him “should never have been made”.
The former Conservative health secretary, who served from 2018 to 2021, is being sued by former North West Leicestershire MP Andrew Bridgen over a social media post on X (then Twitter) in January 2023.
The appeal follows a High Court decision last April that allowed Mr Bridgen’s claim to proceed to hearing and rejected Mr Hancock’s earlier attempt to have the claim dismissed.
Mr Hancock is now appealing that decision, while Mr Bridgen opposed it.
Aidan Eardley KC, representing Mr Hancock, told the court on Wednesday: “His view is that the view he is being sued for expressing is his honest opinion.”
Mr Hancock said he was concerned the case could be used as a tool to “attack” the Covid-19 vaccine plan, but added that there was an ongoing public inquiry and the court should consider “carefully” whether the case had a realistic prospect of success.
In written submissions, Mr Eardley told the court in London: “This is an allegation of libel that should never have been made.
“This is about political discourse remaining within the generous limits afforded by the defense of honest thought. The claim should have been rejected immediately upon being made.”
“The judge’s failure to do so was based on serious errors of approach which the Court of Appeal was called upon to correct.”
The post in question came after Mr Bridgen shared a link to an article “about data on deaths and other adverse reactions linked to Covid vaccines”: “As a consultant cardiologist told me, this is the greatest crime against humanity since the Holocaust.”
Hours later, Mr Hancock shared a video of himself asking questions in the House of Commons with the caption: “The disgusting and dangerous antisemitic, anti-vax, anti-scientific conspiracy theories put forward by a sitting MP this morning are unacceptable and have absolutely no place in our society.”
Christopher Newman, for Mr Bridgen, said in written comments: “Given the use of the word ‘since’ and all known definitions of antisemitism, the tweet is not prima facie antisemitic.
“At the heart of this appeal lies Mr Hancock’s attempt to avoid this outcome, which was allegedly fatal to his defense in these proceedings, by advancing two allegations which could be shown to be false by reference to documents produced during the proceedings.”
He added that Mr Hancock was “completely wrong” in his claim that there was significant uncertainty about what antisemitism meant because of the existence of a range of definitions.
The case, before Mrs Justice King, Lord Justice Warby and Lady Justice Whipple, will conclude on Wednesday.
