Jewish blogger wins first stage of legal battle against Jeremy Corbyn after suing the former Labour leader for claiming he lacked 'English irony'

  • Richard Millett complained about remarks made by Jeremy Corbyn on the BBC
  • He claims Mr Corbyn defamed him by saying he was 'disruptive and abusive' 
  • Mr Corbyn disputes the Jewish blogger's claim and said it was an 'opinion'
  • However, a judge concluded today Mr Corbyn's words were in fact defamatory 

A Jewish blogger has won the first stage of his legal battle against Jeremy Corbyn after suing the ex Labour leader for claiming he lacked 'English irony'. 

Richard Millett complained about comments made by Mr Corbyn in a BBC television interview with broadcaster Andrew Marr nearly two years ago.

He says Mr Corbyn defamed him by accusing him of being 'disruptive and abusive' at a 2013 meeting featuring a Palestinian speaker.

Mr Corbyn disputes Mr Millett's claims and denies defaming him.

Lawyers representing Mr Millett argued that the allegations were 'factual', lawyers representing Mr Corbyn argued that the 'words conveyed a statement of opinion'. 

Mr Justice Saini, who oversaw a preliminary hearing in June, ruled on Friday that Mr Corbyn was making 'factual' allegations 'as to Mr Millett's behaviour', rather than a statement of opinion.

Richard Millett complained about comments made by Jeremy Corbyn, where he said Zionists did not

Richard Millett complained about comments made by Jeremy Corbyn, where he said Zionists did not 

Mr Justice Saini had heard that, shortly after a meeting involving the Palestinian speaker, Mr Corbyn, who was then not the Labour leader, had addressed a conference, organised by the Palestinian Return Centre.

Mr Corbyn had said 'the Zionists' who had attended the meeting had 'berated' the Palestinian speaker.

He had said these 'Zionists' did not want to study history and did not understand English irony.

The judge concluded that the 'words complained of' referred to Mr Millett and 'bore a meaning defamatory of Mr Millett'.

He said what had been said suggested 'conduct falling below the standards expected of citizens in modern British society'. 

Mr Millett's lawyers argued that to accuse someone of being 'disruptive and abusive to the degree in issue' must have 'caused him to have been defamed'.

Mr Millett's lawyers argued that to accuse someone of being 'disruptive and abusive to the degree in issue' must have 'caused him to have been defamed'

Mr Millett's lawyers argued that to accuse someone of being 'disruptive and abusive to the degree in issue' must have 'caused him to have been defamed'

Lawyers representing Mr Corbyn disagreed and argued what had been said did not lower Mr Millett in the 'estimation of right thinking people'. 

In August 2018, when Mr Corbyn had become leader of the Labour Party, a video of that 'irony speech' was made public.

William Bennett QC, who led Mr Millett's legal team, said there had subsequently been 'huge publicity' about 'the fact that' Mr Corbyn's 'statements during the irony speech' had been directed at Mr Millett.

Marr had then asked Mr Corbyn about the 'irony speech', during an interview on The Andrew Marr Show, in September 2018.

The judge heard how Mr Corbyn had told Marr that he had not been 'anti-Semitic'.

He said 'the two people' had been 'incredibly disruptive' and he had accused them of not understanding English irony, because he wanted to defend the Palestinian speaker.

Mr Millett says people who had read media articles saying statements Mr Corbyn made during the 'irony speech' were directed at him, would have realised that the Labour leader was referring to him when telling Marr about 'two people' who had been 'incredibly disruptive'.

Sorry we are not currently accepting comments on this article.