Former Health Secretary Matt Hancock is being sued for libel by former Tory MP Andrew Bridgen over a tweet – the latest stage of the legal battle was heard in the Court of Appeal today
Former health secretary Matt Hancock has said a libel claim brought by former Tory colleague Andrew Bridgen against him over a tweet “should never have been brought”.
Mr Hancock, who was Conservative health secretary during the Covid pandemic, is being sued by the former North West Leicestershire MP over a post on social media platform X, then known as Twitter, in January 2023.
In April last year, a High Court judge ruled Mr Bridgen’s claim could go to trial, after refusing Mr Hancock’s bid to end the claim.
Mr Hancock has since launched a challenge against the decision at the Court of Appeal, with a hearing held today.
READ MORE: Ex-Tory minister Grant Shapps quits top defence firm after ‘breaking major rule’READ MORE: Wes Streeting warns Labour risks handing keys to No10 to Reform in dramatic intervention
On January 11, 2023, Mr Bridgen shared a story by a controversial scientist who claimed the Covid vaccine could be the worst crime against humanity “since the Holocaust”. The tweet led to Mr Bridgen losing the Conservative whip and subsequently being expelled from the party.
On the same day, Mr Hancock shared a video of him asking a question in the House of Commons, captioned: “The disgusting and dangerous antisemitic, anti-vax, anti-scientific conspiracy theories spouted by a sitting MP this morning are unacceptable and have absolutely no place in our society.”
Mr Bridgen sued him for libel over the claims of antisemitism, with the Court of Appeal ruling today marking the latest stage in the legal battle after a High Court judge gave the go-ahead to the libel claim last year.
Aidan Eardley KC, representing Matt Hancock, said in court on Wednesday: “His position is that the opinion he is being sued for expressing is his honest opinion.”
He added that Mr Hancock is concerned that the case may be used as a vehicle to “attack” the Covid-19 vaccination scheme, but that there is a public inquiry ongoing and the court should “carefully” consider if the case has a realistic prospect of success.
In written submissions, Mr Eardley told the court in London: “This is a libel claim that should never have been brought.
“It concerns political speech falling well within the generous limits afforded by the defence of honest opinion. Having been brought, the claim should have been dismissed summarily.
“The judge’s failure to do so was based on serious errors of approach, which the Court of Appeal is invited to correct.”
Christopher Newman, for Mr Bridgen, said in written submissions: “The tweet is not, on its face, antisemitic given the use of the word ‘since’ and all known definitions of antisemitism.
“At the heart of this appeal lies Mr Hancock’s attempt to avoid that conclusion, which is arguably fatal to his defence in these proceedings, by advancing two contentions which can be shown to be wrong by reference to documents filed in the course of proceedings.”
He added that Mr Hancock was “simply wrong” in his contentions that there is considerable uncertainty as to what antisemitism means because of the existence of a number of definitions.
Lady Justice King, Lord Justice Warby and Lady Justice Whipple will hand down their ruling in writing at a later date.