This article is from the source 'independent' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/plebgate-former-chief-whip-andrew-mitchell-loses-high-court-libel-action-9887920.html

The article has changed 7 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 3 Version 4
Plebgate: Andrew Mitchell loses High Court libel action Plebgate: Andrew Mitchell’s reputation in tatters as judge rules that he did say ‘pleb’
(about 3 hours later)
A High Court judge has ruled former Government chief whip Andrew Mitchell probably call police officers "f****** plebs" after they refused to allow him to cycle through Downing Street's main gates. Andrew Mitchell was left with his reputation in tatters and facing a legal bill of more than £1m after the comprehensive failure of his two-year campaign to prove he was the victim of an orchestrated police conspiracy to bring him down over the “Plebgate” saga.
Mr Mitchell today said he was "bitterly disappointed" after losing his libel action against News Group Newspapers (NGN) over the 2012 "Plebgate" incident after Mr Justice Mitting ruled that "on the balance of probabilities" the politician did use the "potentially toxic" word. In a devastating hour-long ruling that ends any hopes of a return to frontline politics, Mr Justice Mitting found that the ex-minister had used the politically toxic word “plebs” during an ill-tempered and childish outburst against police officers manning the gates of Downing Street.
The 58-year-old MP for Sutton Coldfield had sued NGN over a story in The Sun in September 2012 which said he used the phrase during the incident at the gates. In a series of public pronouncements in the two years after the September 2012 clash, a defiant Mr Mitchell had accused officers of lying and conspiring to bring him down – and had vowed to clear his name in the libel court.
NGN said it based its report, which it said was substantially true, on the account given in his log by Pc Toby Rowland. But the judge ruled that the famously short-fused former cabinet minister had lost his temper and was probably unable to remember what he said during the 12-and-a-half second exchange as he left Downing Street.
Giving his ruling, Mr Justice Mitting said: "For the reasons given 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." A “bitterly disappointed” Mr Mitchell has been ordered to pay £300,000 within weeks as a down payment for a costly failed gamble in the courts after rallying friends, including Bob Geldof and a raft of Tory grandees, to his cause. His total bill for the £3m court case is estimated at around £1m.
The officer claimed statements made by Mr Mitchell from December 2012 onwards falsely suggested he had fabricated his allegations.
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."
CCTV of Andrew Mitchell (bottom left) approaching officers prior to an exchange with Metropolitan police officers at the gates of Downing StreetCCTV of Andrew Mitchell (bottom left) approaching officers prior to an exchange with Metropolitan police officers at the gates of Downing Street
He told the judge: "I did not say those words. I would never call a policeman a pleb, let alone a f******* pleb." The judge said Mr Mitchell’s account was inconsistent with CCTV footage of events on the night and he found that the “old-fashioned police officer” Toby Rowland lacked the “wit, imagination and inclination” to make up the damning phrases that brought the politician low.
He accepted he muttered under his breath but audibly: "I thought you lot were supposed to f****** help us", but not at the officer. As the judge handed down his ruling, a downcast Mr Mitchell – flanked by his wife, Sharon, and his closest political supporter, David Davis – grew increasingly red-faced as the judge ruled that the officer’s case may have been embellished but not fabricated.
He said 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 earlier in the day. According to PC Rowland’s version of the exchange, Mr Mitchell told him: “Best you learn your f***ing place… You don’t run this f***ing government, you’re f***ing plebs” after he escorted Mr Mitchell to the side gate of Downing Street. He then added: “You haven’t heard the last of this.”
He thought it "extremely odd" when he was issued with a warning under the Public Order Act by Pc Rowland, but apologised to the officer for his language the next day. The exchange was leaked to The Sun newspaper, prompting Mr Mitchell to launch his failed libel claim against its publishers, News Group Newspapers.
Mr Mitchell agreed the chief whip's role required a mixture of charm and menace and that he could occasionally be abrasive. Claims that Mr Mitchell had been the victim of a stitch-up sparked a political crisis and damaged public confidence in policing.
But he said he did not merit the "extraordinary tsunami of vitriol which descended on my head over a prolonged period of time". Continuing revelations about police misconduct led to the former minister receiving an apology from the head of the Metropolitan Police after one officer was jailed and three other members of the specialist diplomatic protection team were sacked. At the time Mr Mitchell decided to push ahead with the libel action, the public consensus was that he had probably not said the words ascribed to him. But in his ruling at a packed court, Mr Justice Mitting said that the former minister had probably said what he was accused of saying. “The loss of temper can lead to both loss of inhibition in speaking and to an imperfect recollection of what was said,” he said.
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". “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 Price said: "In the end, the lies brought Mr Mitchell down, destroying a political career of 27 years." In a brief comment outside the High Court following the ruling, Mr Mitchell thanked his family and legal team after what had been a “miserable two years” after quitting his job under intense pressure after the clash became public.
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. “We now need to bring this matter to a close and move on with our lives,” he said – indicating he would not appeal.
"I was perfectly calm, perfectly polite. It is quite common to have disagreements about entrances and times people can come and go." The judge said that the ruling would be a “heavy blow” to the former Chief Whip who had spent hours in the witness box denying that he had ever used the word “pleb”. But the case heard a series of occasions when he clashed with police and security officers, calling one a “little shit” during another Downing Street confrontation.
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. Former cabinet minister Andrew Mitchell MP arrives at the High Court in London before the verdict  
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. Mr Mitchell will learn the full cost of his failure next year as a judge decides on the damages he must pay to PC Rowland and to News Group Newspapers.
In his ruling Mr Justice Mitting rejected that there was collusion by the officers on the gate that night and 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". PC Rowland said that he and his family had gone through “indescribable” pain over the incident that happened only because he was doing his job “without fear or favour”. He has consistently stuck to his account of the story and said that he had been cleared of wrongdoing during four different investigations into the incident.
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. “I also recognise how difficult it must have been for Mr Mitchell’s family and I hope now that a line can be drawn and everyone can be left in peace,” said PC Rowland outside the High Court.
"Toby has conducted himself with dignity and professionalism in relation to this incident and subsequent inquiries and legal cases. Mr Mitchell’s legal team said he would sign an undertaking not to repeat the claims that the officer had lied.
"It is important that this incident is now brought to a close to allow Toby and his family to look to the future."
Gavin Millar QC, for NGN, asked for Mr Mitchell's claim to be dismissed on the basis of the judge's findings of fact which meant that the defence of justification succeeded.
Mr Mitchell, sitting next to his wife, Sharon Bennett, remained impassive as his counsel said that, although the judgment "decides obviously and clearly the critical issue against us", it required further careful consideration to determine where it left the litigation.
He said it was obvious that there was "not the slightest question" of Mr Mitchell making any further accusation against Pc Rowland and there was no need for an injunction as an undertaking would be forthcoming if required.
Additional reporting by PA