MJ Bodyguards Libel Trial to be heard WITHOUT jury!!
DancingTheDream
Posts: 4,923
A judge has ordered that a libel trial being brought by the bodyguard of Michael Jackson against Channel 4 is to be heard without a jury.
The controversial decision by Mr Justice Tugendhat comes just two weeks before the trial and has raised fears about the future of juries in libel cases. The trial involves allegations of dishonesty and fabrication by the programme makers and has already run up £3 million in legal costs.
But the late decision by the judge, who was concerned that a jury would add to the costs, has alarmed media lawyers. Matt Fiddes’s legal team has lodged an urgent appeal, to be heard early next week, which will be a test of the right to a jury in libel cases.
Mr Fiddes, a martial arts expert, is suing over a programme broadcast in November 2008 which he said included fabricated footage and false statements about him.
The programme, entitled The Jacksons are Coming, followed members of the family as they were planning to move to Devon.
Channel 4 has already tried unsuccessfully this year to obtain an injunction restricting reporting of parts of earlier hearings on the ground that it could influence a jury at the forthcoming trial.
When he dismissed the broadcaster’s application in February, Mr Justice Tugendhat said: “I must give the jury credit for [having the] ability to hear and understand and apply the directions of the trial judge ...”
But the judge has now granted a further application by Channel 4 and the programme makers for trial by judge alone. He was concerned that there was a written document and some footage that would require prolonged examination by the jury.
Lawyers for Mr Fiddes maintained that the language in the written document was straightforward and jargon-free and would be needed only for the cross-examination of one witness.They said that the footage would involve up to 25 minutes of viewing, but would not be difficult.
Mr Justice Tugendhat said: “The trial will take longer if it is a trial by jury. It takes longer for 12 people to get to the right page of a bundle than it takes for one judge.”
But lawyers counter that the saving would amount to only two days on a 20-day trial, which is hardly a “substantial prolongation”. Most of the £3 million costs have already been incurred.
In appeal papers lodged with the court, they said that the judge did not take into account that the allegations were of dishonesty in a television programme watched by millions of members of the public.
“This is a classic case requiring trial by jury,” and the judge had not taken account of the “chilling effect” on freedom of expression of his decision and other rights such as the right to a fair trial, the papers said.
Instead, the judge had remarked that juries were a “constitutional threat” that represented a “chilling effect” on freedom of expression because they increased the costs of libel actions.
Andrew Stephenson, a partner with Carter-Ruck solicitors, said: “This decision is startling. It has long been established that it is the right of either party in a libel case to have trial by jury, save where the trial involves prolonged examination of documents.
“In a case such as this where the essential issues will be what viewers of the programme will have understood it to say about Mr Fiddes, and whether that was in substante true, then it seems to be that — barring compelling reasons to the contrary — either side should be allowed trial by jury, as more representative of public opinion than a single judge.”
Hugh Tomlinson, QC, media law and human rights barrister, said: “The concern is that this decision is another step in the process of abolishing the constitutional right to trial by jury in libel cases by a sidewind of statutory interpretation. If libel juries are to be abolished this should be done after a proper public debate.
<!-- m -->http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/b ... 144388.ece<!-- m -->
Comments
No Jury For Jackson Bodyguard's Trial
A judge has ordered a libel trial involving MICHAEL JACKSON's former bodyguard to be heard without a jury present.
Matt Fiddes claims TV series The Jacksons Are Coming, about the famous family's search for a home in Devon, England, contained several staged scenes.
The ex-security guard also alleges the show, which was first aired in the U.K. in 2008, falsely implied he had betrayed Tito Jackson by leaking stories to the press.
He is suing U.K. TV network Channel 4, production company Studio Lambert, and the narrator of the programme, Jane Preston.
But Mr Justice Tugendhat has ruled that there will be no jury when the case heads to London's High Court later this month (Jun10), in a bid to keep costs down as legal fees have already escalated to $4.5 million (£3 million).
Tugendhat said, "It takes longer for 12 people to get to the right page of a bundle than it takes for one judge."
But Fiddes' lawyers have submitted an urgent appeal, which will be heard next week (beg07Jun10), fighting the decision.
In the appeal, his legal team states, "This is a classic case requiring trial by jury".