Christopher Carrie
is the author of a self-published book in which he claims to have
been sexually abused by the son of writer JRR Tolkien, Father John
Tolkien. John Tolkien, who was a priest, died in 2003.
Carrie set up a blog on 5th February 2007 and published a post
under a pseudonym on 6th February, promoting his website and his
book, which could be downloaded from there for free.
The court heard that JRR Tolkien's great grandson Royd Tolkien
had posted a comment on the site claiming that Carrie was a
fraudster who had tried to defraud the Catholic Church and the
Tolkien family and had admitted to lying about sexual abuse to
extract money from the church.
Carrie denied the claims via his pseudonym on the site, and sued
Tolkien, claiming that the remarks were defamatory.
Carrie did not remove the remarks, though, even though the Court
heard that he had seen them four-and-a-half hours after they were
posted. The remarks are still online.
Tolkien argued that this meant that Carrie consented to the
publication of the comments, and the High Court agreed. Mr Justice
Eady granted summary judgment in favour of Tolkien.
"No explanation was offered for [Carrie] having taken no steps
to delete it until his witness statement of 18 November 2008 was
served," said the ruling. "The explanation given, however, of
putting the words 'in context' does not in any way detract from the
validity of a defence of authorisation or acquiescence. The fact
remains that he could have removed it at any time over the last 22
months."
"[Carrie's] conduct is hardly compatible with the suggestion in
his pleading that he has suffered 'substantial upset and distress'
or with the assertion that he has 'concerns about the welfare and
safety of [his] family'," said the judgment.
"[Carrie] has responded to some extent to the pleading of the
defence of consent, but not to any substantive effect. For example,
he relies upon the fact that he reported the posting to the local
police on or about 25 February 2007. That may be so, but it does
not meet the defence. Nothing in the reply can serve to undermine
the basic fact that he has acquiesced in the continuing
publications since the original date of publication," said Mr
Justice Eady.
The Court ruled that a jury was likely to conclude that Carrie
consented to the publication of the remarks after 3.41pm on the day
of publication, when he responded to them on the site.
That still left a potential defamation case to answer in
relation to the four-and-a-half hours during which the remarks were
live on the site before it became clear that Carrie was aware of
them.
The law of defamation protects people against harm to their
reputation. An article must be read for it to harm someone's
reputation, and Mr Justice Eady said that it is not sufficient
simply to assert that an article's appearance online means that it
has been read.
"There is no presumption in law to the effect that placing
material on the Internet leads automatically to a substantial
publication," he said. "There must be some evidence on which an
inference can be drawn in relation to that very short period of
time."
The judge referred to the 2006 case of businessman Mohammed
Hussein Al Amoudi, who sued a terrorism expert over claims,
published online, that Al Amoudi had links to the financing the
activities of terrorist Osama Bin Laden.
The judge in that case said that Al Amoudi would have to prove
that the material was accessed and downloaded in the UK in order to
proceed with his case.
Mr Justice Eady came to the same conclusion. "It will not
suffice merely to plead that the posting has been accessed 'by a
large but unquantifiable number of readers'. There must be some
solid basis for the inference. That form of pleading is no more
than bare assertion," he said.
Disclaimer: We hope you find OUT-LAW’s content useful. It’s prepared by the lawyers at Pinsent Masons. Please remember, though, that it’s intended as general information only. It’s not legal advice. If that’s what you’re seeking, please
contact us. See also: our
full disclaimer
