Andrew Bridgen vs Midazolam Matt - Defamation, a Step Too Far

So, Friday 1st March saw finally Andrew getting his day in court against the shocking character abuse and inflammatory language seen worldwide by Matt Hancock in Parliament that saw him removed from the Conservative party that he'd proudly stood and represented on behalf of his constituents in North West Leicestershire.

The comments came after Andrew spoke in the House about the shocking excess deaths seen worldwide from the Covid vaccine rollout and quoted words from a Hebrew University professor who'd declared that it was the greatest loss of life seen since the holocaust.

A pretty powerful statement admittedly but as a Jewish scholar he was wholly justified and more than qualified in saying this I think and as a friend of Andrew's it was a perfectly justifiable expression to repeat before the House to raise awareness of the worldwide excess deaths seen.

What Hancock then did was utterly shameful, for him to crazily accuse Andrew of such ridiculous aspersions insulted not only those present to hear his bizarre diatribe but it also highlighted further his own shocking character.

Matt's words are as follows.

"Does the Prime Minister agree with me that, The disgusting, anti-semitic, anti-vax, conspiracy theories that have been promulgated online this morning are not only deeply offensive but anti-scientific and have absolutely no place in this House or in our Wider society"

Rishi Sunak in response chose to counter Matt's statement with comments on "defending the Jewish community against abuse they've seen the last few years" whereas it was a direct quote used in describing the excess deaths seen.

I personally don't think the defamation case should rule out Rishi as a co-accused because of the way he ramped up the attack on Andrew's character and forcing his immediate suspension and then working with the chief whip to shut down any chance of democracy being seen & heard in parliament.

We've all seen the battles in Parliament since his return as an independent MP, whether it's Penny Mordaunt ridiculing him in responses to government questions, Andrew Mitchell as chief whip ordering members to leave the house during debates he'd called and those very debates he'd called on excess deaths that have been denied him dozens of times.

Maybe calling for all of government to attend Court as co-accused would be a little extreme but they are all as sure as guilty of so much that it's maybe a pipe dream just now and as I wasn't able to attend the hearing, the following coverage coupled with my interpretation is courtesy of @HuntandGatherTV which I've edited down for flow, thank you.

There are roughly twenty people in the public gallery, all apparently here in support of Andrew and there appears to be several journalists present, although on the content they'll cover awaits to be seen due to the inflammatory and often less than fair coverage normally given him in the press but let's see.

Mr Hancock didn't appear to be present in court sadly but was represented by Aidan Eardley KC and instructed by RPC solicitors whilst Mr Bridgen was present and was represented by Chris Newman of The New Litigation.

Aidan Eardley KC first set out Mr Hancock's reasons for believing Mr Bridgen's case should be struck out because it doesn't name him and therefore says Mr Bridgen's witness statement should not be considered which is very interesting considering the libellous Tweet was based upon the actions mentioned in Court on comments made and no other member of the house was present that it was aimed at.

There was an intriguing comment about historic Test cases using the Dyson case as an example in pointing out that it's clear that although with references made, that even though there was a lack of a name linking it directly doesn't mean the defamation isn't clear and so the libel action should be able to remain and although Dyson lost his case, 'reference innuendo' as an alternate basis has been introduced as means for challenging the decision.

An interesting morning in court it sounded with the constant challenges and heated exchanges before the Judge and which the mood constantly veered from a possibly positive outcome for Bridgen to one that's unfavourable but it's clear there's a lot of doubt on a verdict yet.

"There is one huge problem with the submissions this morning" Mr Newman stated. "There is need for Mr Bridgen to prove only that ONE reader of the tweet had made the connection with Mr Bridgen" which as heard, had actually been proven but due to how the law works means there's some wriggle room sadly.

The Judge corrected this and said that "Mr Eardley's case is that Mr Bridgen would have to prove that someone knew 'the extrinsic facts' when they read the tweet for his case to succeed and in his reply, Hancock's representative Mr Eardley emphasised the Dyson case in his submission that "this is a reference innuendo case" and insists it failed on that basis, funny how words can be twisted to suit whatever basis of claim being called.

That concluded the hearing that Andrew crowdfunded with amazingly generous members of the public and with Mrs Justice Steyn stating that she will reserve judgement, that's it all over, beginning around 10.30 am and finishing around 1pm, time will tell now how history sees this.