FORMER Government chief whip Andrew Mitchell today lost his High Court libel
action over the “Plebgate” incident.
He sued News Group Newspapers over a September 2012 story in The Sun saying he
called Downing Street police officers “f****** plebs”.
The row happened after the officers refused to allow him to cycle through the
main vehicle gates.
NGN based its report, which it said was substantially true, on the account
given in PC Toby Rowland log.
Giving his ruling, Mr Justice Mitting said: “I am satisfied at least on the
balance of probabilities that Mr Mitchell did speak the words alleged or
something so close to them as to amount to the same including the
politically toxic word pleb.”
Mr Mitchell was ordered to pay £300,000 on account towards legal costs that
could reach £3 million. The total he must pay will be decided at a future
hearing.
The Tory MP said he was “bitterly disappointed” by the result as he
left the Royal Courts of Justice this afternoon.
He added: “It’s been a miserable two years. We now need to bring this
matter to a close and move on with our lives.”
PC Rowland also made a statement outside court after he was vindicated by the
judge’s ruling.
He thanked his legal team and his family and friends “for their
unwavering support through what has been the very worst times personally”.
The officer – cleared of wrongdoing by a Met probe – added: “I am
delighted that once again my innocence and integrity and my reputation as a
police officer has been recognised.
“The pain myself and my family have been through is indescribable, and it
is particularly saddening that all this happened because I was merely
following procedures. I was doing my job without fear or favour.”
Stig Abell, managing editor of The Sun, said: “Today represents
vindication for the Sun and its journalists.
“We have always stood by our story and continue to do so.
“We are delighted that the judge has ruled that what we reported about
events on Downing Street in the evening in question was the truth and
accurate.
“There has been a lot of speculation and comment about Mr Mitchell’s
outburst, and criticism of our newspaper. The judgement today lays all that
to rest.”
Mr Mitchell, who resigned as whip a month after the altercation, denied
saying: “Best you learn your f****** place – you don’t run this f******
government – you’re f****** plebs.”
He said he would never call a policeman a pleb “let alone a f****** pleb” –
although he agreed he muttered audibly under his breath ’I thought you lot
were supposed to f****** help us’ – but not at the officer.
He was in a hurry to get to the Carlton Club that evening and was expecting to
be let through as he had been without difficulty that morning and after
lunch.
He thought it “extremely odd” when Pc Rowland issued him with a warning under
the Public Order Act, but apologised to the officer for his language the
next day.
Mr Mitchell agreed that the chief whip’s role required a mixture of charm and
menace and that he could occasionally be abrasive, but said he did not merit
the “extraordinary tsunami of vitriol which descended on my head over a
prolonged period of time”.
His counsel, James Price QC, said a “web of lies, deceit and indiscipline” by
police officers led to a press campaign and public hostility and the version
of the encounter which was leaked to the newspaper by a number of officers
was “wholly false”.
Mr Price said: “In the end, the lies brought Mr Mitchell down, destroying a
political career of 27 years.”
Statements supplied in court by a range of people, from musician Bob Geldof to
painter and decorator Richard Robinson, showed he was not a “Tory toff” who
would put someone down by using a “toxic and class-laden” expression like
pleb.
But Desmond Browne QC, for PC Rowland, claimed Mr Mitchell was a “Jekyll and
Hyde” character whose capacity for menace found its outlet in foul temper
and foul language.
He said the MP was regularly let through the vehicle gates, in the face of the
security policy, because of the “unpleasant fuss” he made.
PC Rowland said he did not know who Mr Mitchell was when he saw the “agitated”
MP having a disagreement with a fellow officer and went to speak to him.
“I was perfectly calm, perfectly polite. It is quite common to have
disagreements about entrances and times people can come and go.”
He claimed that members of the public were within earshot and visibly shocked
when Mr Mitchell swore, which prompted the “correct, proportionate and very
necessary” warning.
He denied that his account was an invention to “cover my arse” and justify
giving a Cabinet minister a warning, maintaining that he recorded exactly
what happened when it was fresh in his mind.
In his ruling Mr Justice Mitting said PC Rowland was “not the sort of man who
would have had the wit, imagination or inclination to invent on the spur of
the moment an account of what a senior politician had said to him in
temper”.
The judge rejected the allegation that there was collusion by the officers on
the gate that night.
Steve White, chair of the Police Federation of England and Wales, said: “We
are pleased that the judge has ruled in PC Toby Rowland’s favour. Toby’s
name has been cleared and his integrity restored.
“Toby has conducted himself with dignity and professionalism in relation to
this incident and subsequent inquiries and legal cases.
“It is important that this incident is now brought to a close to allow Toby
and his family to look to the future.”
