Lawyers for the immediate ex-President of the USA were in the English High Court on Monday trying to bring a case against the company that compiled the Steele “Russia, Russia, Russia” Dossier on Putin’s interference in the 2018 Presidential elections. On the face of it his case looks, to use US legal parlance, “like a dumpster fire”. But could the real purpose be to try to suppress discussion of the Russian interference in the 2024 Presidential and the 2020 mid-term elections?
Monday’s was a preliminary hearing before the judge, Mrs Justice Steyn who was being asked, in part, to allow the action at all. It was brought after the period allowed in English law. In arguing the case should go forward the Plaintiff submitted a written statement that “he had not had time to sue in the UK before now because he had been busy being president.” I believe it is over 2½ years since Mr Biden took office so that may not be an argument that’s up to snuff for the English courts. That’s even if the Plaintiff believed he was still President. However after I picked myself up from the floor I was laughing on, I considered another motivation.
This is not a simple defamation case to clear the Plaintiff’s name to show he had not "engaged in perverted sexual behaviour" As ever the devil is in the detail.
Hugh Tomlinson KC, for the 77-year-old former president, said the dossier also falsely claimed he had "paid bribes to Russian officials to further his business interests" and "took part in sex parties in St Petersburg".
"[He] intends to discharge his burden by giving evidence in this court," the lawyer said, should the case go to full trial in the future.
The allegations, the court heard, were at the heart of the claim for damages because they amounted to a breach of the UK's strict data protection laws that govern what can be done with personal information, even if the information is not true.alleged “
So not only is the intent to suppress any further collection of potentially compromising information but also to threaten anyone passing on that information to anyone outside of the UK/EU with criminal sanctions. The UK’s data protection legislation was written when part of the EU so there are similar laws community-wide. Companies outside the area have to comply or face large fines. Provisions include cookie collected data and there must be opt-outs for UK/EU residents. This is why I cannot see many US news sites as they block them to save the programming required.
A company found in gross breach like Cambridge Analytica can lose their right to hold or process personal data and be put out of business, in addition to potentially very large fines. A victory for the Paintiff might be used as a precedent in other European countries.
Here I think the Plaintiff might have gotten the wrong end of the stick. In the same way he thought a “worthless” clause meant he can lie, he doesn’t understand “data”. The laws he is trying to threaten with apply to computer databases. Steele’s notebooks or tapes recording statements about alleged “perverted sexual behaviour” are not computer data in the sense of the acts. Looks suspiciously like a client with a vague knowledge of law telling his King’s Counsel what to say. I hope he has been cautioned that in the unlike;y event of going to trial; a jury would have to assess the financial harm caused to his reputation. This could be any amount but I believe the minimum award has recently risen from a penny to a pound.
I doubt if Mrs Justice Steyn will have to address that point when she gives her decision in due course. The first problem is that the Plaintiff appears to be suing the wrong party.
Antony White KC, for Orbis, told the court that Mr Trump had accepted that the company was not responsible for BuzzFeed's publication of the document.
Watched on by Mr Steele, Mr White told Mrs Justice Steyn the case had no realistic prospect of winning and the former president had run out of time to even start it.
Orbis had never intended the dossier to become public and had long ago destroyed its own copies of the research.
So clearly a libel case brought against a US company would fail under US law and precedents and the Candidate for the Republican nomination thought bringing up the <p-word> tapes would be a good idea to deflect from the Russian influence currently going on.
Without wishing to preempt reserved judgement let me channel my inner Lord Denning and give you my summation.
The Plaintiff seeks to bring an action alleging libel by Orbis PLC. His application was however out of time but he pled leave to bring a late action because he was otherwise engaged in his duties as President of the United States of America.
Under the US codified Constitution, from which all laws flow, the country is a presidential republic. The President is elected every for years. The post combines both Head of State and Head of Government. There must be little free time from these duties to watch television, play golf or brief lawyers.
This court has to administer the laws passed in a parliamentary monarchy but I have to show the King’s Justice in my decisions. We have no codified constitution, It resides in a mixture laws, precedents and some custom. We are a land of laws. Even the King is monarch by reason of parliament passing the Act of Settlement in 1701.
None of my fellow judges nor myself were elected or appointed by a political party. We were appointed by the monarch on the advice of a learned group of legal and judicial experts. We are truely independent and will brook no fear or favours. I am to administer the King’s Justice by applying the Laws of this nation formed by its Parliament
To all who come before this court, however powerful, I would use Thomas Fuller's words over three hundred years ago, ‘Be ye never so high, the law is above you.’
Be they pauper, president or prince; all are equal before it.
The Plaintiff is a former President of the United States of America. This indirectly elected post is for a four year term as Head of State and Head of Government. I understand that following an electoral defeat in November 2020, he left office in late January 2021. I therefore find that his assertion that his failure to start these proceedings in time was due to his undertaking such duties to not be adequate. Indeed from my understanding of his activities in the post, I would find in the same manner if he were still President today.
Application denied. Costs awarded against the Plaintiff.