17August
M'learned friend Mat GB has been discussing an event from The Memory Hole:
John Major, then Prime Minister, sued the New Statesman for printing an article asserting he wasn't having an affair with his caterer. The suit was spurious, and it was eventually dropped, but not until after the distributors and printers (because they can get sued to, as can a paperboy) settled out of court, and the Staggers indemnity insurance wasn't good enough.
Our memory doesn't quite tally with that summary, but we have slept a number of times since, and it would be useful to have the facts, rather than hazy recollections. So, off to the Newspaper Archive for the facts, and they're all sourced. Wikipedia skivers, bog off and do your own research, for we have inserted one deliberate untruth in this piece.
On 28 January 1993, John Major instructed his lawyers, Biddle & Co, to commence libel proceedings against the New Statesman, and against a publication called Scallywag. Clare Latimer, whose company Clare's Kitchen regularly did the catering for events in Downing Street, was also a party to the action. The Times reported (29 January 1993, p1) that Scallywag had alleged that Mr. Major and Miss Latimer had been seeing each other; only when the New Statesman mentioned the allegation did the prime minister reach for his lawyers.
In the year or so before this event, there had been growing outrage – at least partly manufactured by government – at the perceived excesses of the tabloid press. Matters came to a head in July, when photographs of Dame Sarah Ferguson sucking the toes of a zillionaire playboy were published. The temperature was somewhat cooled when the chief critic, cabinet minister David Mellor, was forced to resign after accepting hospitality from a Palestinian politician. Sir Marcus Fox, the rent-a-quote chairman of the Conservative party's backbench committee, quickly set the tone for this case by saying, They have plunged the depths. This is far worse than anything the tabloids have ever done. It would be ironic if it was the New Statesman which led the way to tighter press controls. (Times, 28 Jan, p1)
By bringing the New Statesman's printers and distributors into the action, Biddle & Co succeeded in having the majority of the print run removed from newsagents' shelves; only the magazine's 7000 subscribers received their copy. Steve Platt was the editor of the New Statesman, and said, We believe that there is nothing within this article that is remotely libellous. The risk involved in going to court over this lies entirely with the prime minister. He is in danger of painting himself into a corner.
Independent lawyers noted that Mr. Major had not applied for an injunction by claiming that the article was defamatory. The solicitor for the New Statesman said, No reasonable person reading that article could come away with an impression adverse to the prime minister quite the contrary. (Times, 29 Jan, p2)
On the 29th, the Press Complaints Commission declined to examine the matter; the PCC said that it could not take the place of the courts. Mr. Platt apologised, saying, Our intention was to demolish persistent rumours that have surrounded him since he took office. We are sorry if anyone has been led to believe otherwise by the press reports of the article. Mr. Platt also asserted that Mr. Major's actions amounted to prior restraint by injunction. (Times, 30 Jan, p3)
Mr. Platt explained what he was publishing, It was an anatomy of a rumour. In total we spoke to 50 or 60 people. We did detailed research. The editorial board was aware of it, and approved. It went through numerous drafts, both editorially and with a view to legal issues. We wanted to make it watertight legally and leave the reader in no doubt about what we were saying. I would not have run the story if I thought there was any truth in the allegations, because it was not the sort of story I would want to do, and secondly, the whole essence was about how something that's untrue can take on a life of its own. (Sunday Times, 31 Jan, pA9) Mr. Platt would later speculate, I think the prime minister sued for reasons of personal grievance but the ball was probably rolling before he had even read the article. That rumour had been around for such a long time that Downing Street was ready to issue denials and throw writs as soon as anything appeared. (Sunday Times, 11 July, pD2)
An apology printed in the following week's edition of the New Statesman proved insufficient for Mr. Major. His solicitors said that he wanted payment of a substantial sum as compensation and to vindicate his reputation; an apology in a position of equal prominence; a joint statement in terms to be agreed; an undertaking not to repeat the libel; and payment of his costs. The letter had expressed regret at any distress caused by the article linking Mr. Major and Miss Latimer, but did not contain the word apology. (Times, 6 Feb, p1)
On 12 February, the printers and distributors offered a formal apology in court, and damages estimated at £60,000. (Times, 12 Feb, p2; Sunday Times, 11 July, pD2) The New Statesman had previously agreed to indemnify these parties against such an event. (Times, 13 Jan 2001, p25)
On 6 July, Mr. Major and Miss Latimer each accepted £1001 in damages, with no admission of liability. Though Mr. Platt called the settlement a moral victory, his publication faced costs of up to £250,000. (Times, 7 July, p2) By this time, readers of the New Statesman had raised £100,000 for a fighting fund. (Times, 8 July, p18) Mr. Platt announced his intention to sell a special edition of the magazine by mail order, reprinting the original article with additional commentary on libel law; we cannot determine whether this item, provisionally entitled The Curious Case of John Major's Libel Action
, was ever sold.
Simon Regan, the editor of Scallywag, vowed to fight on and have his day in court; again, we cannot determine the outcome of this case, but the magazine – which held its editorial meetings in pubs in Weymouth – did not survive. (Times, 8 July, p1) The New Statesman did survive, but only after being taken over by Geoffrey Robinson, the Labour MP for Coventry.
At the time, the Lord Chancellor was already proposing an amendment to the law, so that innocent dissemination would no longer be an offence under libel laws. This would have ruled out Mr. Major's case against the printer and distributor, and saved the New Statesman many thousands of pounds. (17 Feb, p14) It was introduced in the Defamation Act 1996. No regulation of the press has been introduced, and Sir Marcus Fox was defeated at the 1997 election.
In his autobiography, John Major The Autobiography
(1999), Mr. Major said, I was compelled to take a libel action against the New Statesman, which had repeated crude and untrue claims ... that I had had an affair with Clare Latimer... Rumours had been swilling around Fleet Street for some time, I learned... I gained the impression that it created an insolent undercurrent in press reports... A simple denial, followed by no action taken, encourages many these days to speculate that there might be something in a story. I judged that if I took no action the story would circulate indefinitely. I was not prepared to put Norma, Clare Latimer, my children or myself at risk in this way, and decided to knock the story on the head... I had no desire to go through a protracted legal procedure, or to bankrupt the magazine; I simply wanted to ensure that no one else repeated a libel which by that time was generally recognised as such. (pp 553-4)
In 2002, it emerged that Mr. Major had been having an affair at the time. Not with Miss Latimer, but with Mrs. Edwina Currie, the MP for Derbyshire South. Spencer Neal, who was the new publisher of the New Statesman, said that he would be reviewing the case files. (Birmingham Post, 5 Oct 2002, p5)
Further reading: Mr. Platt's side of the story, though it contains an egregious lapse in history in the very first sentence – Back to Basics did not begin until October 1993. He also re-prints the contentious article. Miss Latimer held her silence until February 2004, when she gave a two-part interview to the Camden New Journal.
