There’s new legal paperwork up at Brian Deer’s personal site. It reveals some very interesting facts about two things: First that Andrew Wakefield is instructing his legal team to use his Libel action against Brain Deer as a ‘gagging order’ and secondly that Andrew Wakefield is obviously getting extremely nervous about the effect his GMC hearing will have on his Libel case.
There are three separate actions involving Andrew Wakefield and Brian Deer. One is between Wakefield and the Sunday Times, the other between Wakefield and Brain Deer personally (in respect of his website) and a third one (the one under discussion here) between Wakefield and Channel 4/Twenty twenty Productions.
The ruling judge in this case first said that it was certain that the outcome of just one of these actions would determine the outcome of the others as all three rest on the exact same subject matter. [edit – not sure I got that exactly right – if anyone reads it and comes to a different conclusion, please let me know]
Andrew Wakefield has applied for a ‘stay’ in this case (the C4/2020 one). This means he essentially wants to put this action ‘on hold’. He wants to do this because he claims that the GMC case has seniority over this one. Justice Eady remained distinctly unimpressed with this argument:
In the light of this timescale, it is impossible to envisage the trial of these libel proceedings taking place before the Michaelmas term of 2007. Much of the evidence relating to the issue of justification relates to the mid-90s and a delay of that kind would be plainly undesirable. It would, moreover, involve a gap of three years between the broadcast in question and the trial. That is beyond what is normally regarded as acceptable in the modern climate for the span of a libel action between publication and trial – even in a complicated case…
In British law it is part of the case to consider that a Libel action should be acted on as hastily as possible as the defendant may have good need to clear their name – people like Brian Deer for example who, as an investigative journalist, needs to be trusted to be employable.
So why would Wakefield wish to grant a stay to after the GMC hearing? Because he wants to ‘test the water’ with the GMC action which at most can strip him of his license – a minor inconvenience for one who’s already making a living in Texas – whereas a libel action can strip him of a hell of a lot more. I’m guessing that when things go bad for him and the GMC strip him of his license that all other actions will be quietly dropped.
However, even though he has asking for a stay of this particular action Andrew Wakefield is not above using it as a weapon to browbeat people:
These factors loom even larger in the present case in the light of certain conduct on the Claimant’s part which Miss Page has prayed in aid. It is her case that *the Claimant is seeking to take full advantage of the fact that he has issued libel proceedings while avoiding any detailed public scrutiny of the underlying merits*. In other words, she argues, he is seeking to adopt a strategy comparable to that generally characterised by the phrase “a gagging writâ€. It is necessary to consider these allegations in a little further detail.
A few of you may remember that Wakefield took part in their original Power of Parents rally in the US during which he read an extract of a statement in which a small British paper (the Cambridge Evening News) backed down from a report it had made about Wakefield. Obviously the American parents lapped it up to riotous applause. However, what had _actually_ happened is that Wakefield had instructed his legal team to threaten the Cambridge Evening News with an action like that he had over the Sunday Times:
“You should be aware that proceedings in defamation have already been commenced against The Sunday Times in respect of the article published by Mr Brian Deer on 22nd February 2004. Your article has gone even further than the allegation in The Sunday Times which are currently being litigated and allege impropriety on the part of Mr Wakefield to receive money from lawyers to achieve a predetermined outcome.â€
Justice Eady took exception to this:
In my view that paragraph was misleading. Mr Browne (Wakefield’s QC) argues that, even if the circumstances had been set out more fully and accurately, it would have made no difference to the outcome. The editor would still have acknowledged that he had got his facts wrong. That may be, but the important point at the moment is that the editor was given a misleading impression. Because of the stay, to which I have referred, the allegations in The Sunday Times were certainly not “currently being litigatedâ€. They were stayed pending the outcome of serious allegations of professional misconduct against the Claimant, to which no reference was made. It thus appears that the Claimant wishes to use the existence of the libel proceedings for public relations purposes, and to deter other critics, while at the same time isolating himself from the “downside†of such litigation, in having to answer a substantial defence of justification.
And there’s more: Dr Evan Harris MP had criticised Wakefield on a radio programme. He also got a letter:
“[Mr Andrew Wakefield] has asked us to inform you that defamation proceedings have been instituted against Mr Brian Deer and The Sunday Times newspaper in relation to articles that have been appeared [sic] and statements that have been made by them which are defamatory of [him]………..Mr Wakefield has drawn our attention to a number of statements made by you in connection with Mr Wakefield and the question of MMR both in newspapers and in BBC broadcast programme……Given … the fact of litigation having been instituted in defamation and the existence of the General Medical Council inquiry we hope you will agree that further comment on Mr Wakefield’s conduct by you or anyone else should be limited until the outcome of those proceedings has been determined. This will avoid Mr Wakefield having to consider further legal proceedings at the present timeâ€.
Justice Eady took a grave view of this too:
I regard that as a threat that libel proceedings will be issued against Dr Harris unless he “limits†any further comment – not in itself objectionable. On the other hand, the threat is backed up by reference to litigation against The Sunday Times and Mr Deer which, by the date of the letter, had already been stayed. The implication is that for rather vague “sub judice†reasons it would not be appropriate to comment until the proceedings have been determined. At that stage none of the libel actions was “active†within the meaning of the schedule to the Contempt of Court Act 1981 and there was accordingly no reason why Dr Harris should not comment further, if he wished to do so, subject always to the constraints of defamation. Again, one sees the same pattern. The Claimant wishes to use the proceedings for tactical or public relations advantage without revealing that they have been put on the back burner.
And, incredibly, Wakefield also instructed his team to go after the Dept. of Health:
“…In the circumstances Mr Wakefield is concerned and surprised to note that your official website on behalf of the Department of Health offers links not only to Mr Deer’s own website, but also the Channel 4 website on the programme. It seems extraordinary to us and wholly wrong that the Government’s official organ should direct website visitors to another site which not only records partisan and hotly disputed opinions on the subject but is also the subject of defamation proceedings. You will appreciate our grave concern that this fact appears to suggest that Government offers this subject matter official weight and authority.”
This letter is intended to provide formal written warning that the links provided to these two websites are allowing the dissemination of defamatory material. Since this is so you are now invited to withdraw the Department of Health link to these two websites forthwith given that this is an inappropriate use of Governmental weight and authority in such a controversial areaâ€.
Just as a side note I find it incredible that anyone should try and go after a website which links to Brian Deer’s. For their further legal presumption I’d like to present a list of sites that link to Brian Deer’s. I await your issue of a writ against Wikipedia and Google with interest.
Anyway, back to Justice Eady:
I am quite satisfied, therefore, that the Claimant wished to extract whatever advantage he could from the existence of the proceedings while not wishing to progress them or to give the Defendants an opportunity of meeting the claims. It seems to me that these are inconsistent positions to adopt. This conduct is a powerful factor to be weighed in the exercise of the court’s discretion in circumstances which are clearly unique.
And indeed so powerful that Justice Eady ruled that:
I have come to the conclusion, bearing all these considerations in mind, that the interests of the administration of justice require that the Channel 4 proceedings should not be stayed pending the outcome of the GMC proceedings. I appreciate that there will be an increased workload for the Claimant’s advisers, but I do not have any reason to suppose that the firm is incapable of absorbing that extra burden. It is, after all, their client who chose to issue these proceedings and to use them, as I have described above, as a weapon in his attempts to close down discussion and debate over an important public issue. (I note that separate teams of counsel are instructed for the GMC proceedings and the defamation claims.)
So far as the website proceedings are concerned, I see no advantage in those continuing in parallel. There is a significant overlap. I am persuaded that this overlap is so significant, in relation to the defamation proceedings (unlike the GMC disciplinary process), that the outcome of the Channel 4 proceedings is likely to be in practical terms determinative of the others. Mr Deer acts in person in the website proceedings, and a very considerable burden would be placed upon his shoulders if he had to progress that litigation in parallel to the other action, in which he has the advantage of legal representation. Indeed, it may well be that there is a whiff of tactics in the Claimant’s change of stance, whereby he wished to have the website proceedings continue – but only provided there was no stay of the Channel 4 litigation. This is borne out by the suggestion that, before the Claimant should serve his reply, Mr Deer should be obliged to serve a defence in the website proceedings. That proposal has all the hallmarks of a tactical ploy to put Mr Deer at a disadvantage. It would have the effect of isolating him. I am not prepared to go along with that.
Its not looking good for Andrew Wakefield. He’s now been exposed as a bully who likes to threaten with what he has no intention of pursuing. He’s also looking like he’s beginning to realise that he has no chance of escaping the GMC hearings unscathed. Hopefully all those who like to bandy around legal action as a threat will see that a hot head often gets regretted when the facts are examined.
Left Brain Right Brain 
I can’t support it because I have *no idea* what he did. First I’ve heard about it.
Not knowing anything about JP’s alleged issue, I bet that the threat to go to the AG is purely a scare tactic. I base this on the threats I’ve seen tossed around these boards. Gretchen’s threat to go to my IT is hollow (forget the fact that it’s baseless) – the worst that will happen is that I will get the message forwarded and thus get the IP and contact information from the email.
A law needs to be broken before the Law steps in. That’s all I’m saying. Hurting someone’s feelings isn’t a crime. If it were, your Rescue Angel John Best would be behind bars for insulting my son in a public forum.
JB, do you support the Westover-St. Paul harrassment?
btw, one of the howler classics involved a guy aggressively pushing his theory of evolution on us – tigers came from squirrels and people came from cows – look at the teeth he said. Sad and funny.
Since I’m not totally sure what JB’s talking about, I’m not going to speculate about this in a public forum. I am certainly more than willing to explain the situation to anyone who emails me, and that includes Mr. Handley.
I should clarify – I am willing to explain my theory as to what JB’s talking about to anyone who emails me.
Ken:
JP and/or his wife read a post on the EOH listserve that they found objectionable. The copied it into a letter, adding some of their own words, and sent it to the employer of the person who wrote the post, the parent of an autistic child. The purpose of their action was to embarrass the poster and put their job at risk.
That’s what I contend JP did. He should explain his side of the story, if there is one. When I threatened to sue people for libel, it was specifically in response to JP’s actions [If JP had done that to me, I’d have already sued him]. I don’t condone any form of harrassment of people in their homes or offices. I would never in a million years do that. I would never hassle someone for their nasty words on the web and I would never sue someone for writing mean things about me. I believe deeply in freedom of speech, even with those I painfully disagree with.
JP and/or his wife did something I find morally reprehensible. They put the livelihood of the parent of an autistic child at risk because of something they wrote in an Internet discussion group. To me, they crossed a huge line. I don’t know anything about the Westover/St. Paul thing you are alluding to, but if it involved anything like what JP did, I condemn that behavior, too and I would disassociate myself with anyone who crossed what to me (but not JP and his wife) is a clear line.
JP is one of yours, I hope he speaks up and tells his side.
JB
The Westover/St Paul bit:
http://neurodiversity.com/weblog/article/15/st-paul-saga
and
http://neurodiversity.com/weblog/article/18/craig-westover-responds
Also, do you understand yet that the MMR vaccine has never had thimerosal?
Well, I *was* going to not deal with this publicly, but since JB upped the ante…
The post in question involved a teacher (who happens to be one of JB’s “Rescue Angels”) who reviewed her school’s confidential medical list, tabulated the results, and then posted them on EOHarm. The post was pretty detailed in what conditions what students had – it didn’t mention names, but it certainly mentioned class years and genders. I even discussed it on my blog months ago.
I was troubled enough by what this teacher did that I felt it appropriate to forward that email to that individual’s school district. This person’s identity and school was very easily discerned online. While I did preface the email with some comments and questions of my own, in no way did I alter the content of what this person posted. That was sent as-is.
That was my only contact with the school district. I never heard a response back, and assumed the matter was closed or ignored. I don’t even have the original email I sent anymore, as it’s no longer in my sent folder.
Bottom line is this – the message should’ve never posted to a list-serv. Ever. Confidential information about kids should be off-limits, even if you think it makes your point about autism and vaccines. I forwarded that email (which is perfectly legal to do under the TOS of Yahoo! Groups) and have no regrets about doing it.
JB Handley is begging if he thinks my forwarding an email sent to a public list-serv constitues libel. (and yes, JB, EOHarm is considered a “public” list-serv even if it’s only open to certain members) The reason Mr. Handley is doing this is simple – he doesn’t like what I have to say about his theory or his stance on vaccination, and is trying to strong-arm me into being quiet.
He might succeed, if only because I’m not going to subject my family to harassment or abuse. But be advised that you’re dead wrong on this topic, and if you should be questioning anyone’s ethics it should be those of some of your Rescue Angels.
JB, that’s a big charge. I’ll watch this one from the cheap seats.
But I will weigh in on the “your side” thingy. You can call me Fangorn – I’m on no one’s side. I don’t think I would have ever jumped into autim blog commentary if Best hadn’t said what he did. Besides I don’t even think ND is a side. It’s someone’s site and a few people publicly subscribe to some of the tenets espoused on that site.
I found gettingthetruthout.org to be quite shocking and thought-provoking. It challenged me to view my son in a different light. Does that make me ND?
Does imagining the corps of people who disagree with you (GR) as a competiing organization help to focus energy?
I think the people who disagree with GR are a collection of people with vastly different opinions, concerns, and interests. Some people you term ND cuss and say some pretty outrageous things – I feel no need to correct/turn them down because I’m not in their organization because there is no organization. On the other hand, your presence here and Best’s (concomittant, I believe) absence is noted and appreciated.
Anyway, I have to sleep sometime so it might as well be now.
JB, you should consult your attorneys for advice on how to prevent something like this from happening in the future. Perhaps they would be willing to counsel your Rescue Angels about maintaining any professional confidentiality obligations they may have while engaging in discussions on public lists.
JP:
Where I come from we call people like you “Narcs”.
I think you should post the email you sent, I think it went a bit further than just what was said on EOH, no?
JB
JP:
You’d think a Software Applications Engineer would back up his email. Lost it? You sound like the CDC.
Your explanation doesn’t explain why it would be necessary to mention Generation Rescue and the fact that this person was a Rescue Angel in this email. Why would that be relevant to the public good you were trying to do?
I think you have some more explaining to do.
JB
JP – you did not merely _preface the email with some comments and questions_ — you tried to get her fired.
You took it upon yourself to find out who she was, where she worked, and who her bosses were & then sent them a copy of her EOH post – which by the way, was not a violation for her to post as long as she removed the names.
JP – in your email you went into great detail about the person who posted on EOH and how she was associated with Generation Rescue, what she is doing to treat her child (even mention her by NAME), how she is called a “Rescue Angel” (put in quotes as sarcasm), and that her character and judgement as a teacher and mother needs to be questioned.
You went above and beyond in researching her, and her beliefs – who her child is & where she works and TRIED TO GET HER FIRED.
Forget libel – how about stalking and harrassment?
Ok, JB, you wn.
I’m closing down my blog. I’ll stop commenting on vaccines.
Seriously. I don’t have the energy to deal with this at all right now. Too many things going on right now.
My concern was with the use of confidential information by a teacher and the reason for the use of that material. Nothing more. Claims that I was slandering this woman, questioning her parenting skills, etc. are bogus. As I said, I truly don’t have a copy of the email in question (hotmail deletes sent messages after 30 days) so I don’t even remember exactly what I said.
So fine, I’ll walk away.
The school still has a copy of the email.
You know what you wrote. You know the claims aren’t bogus.
If you were concerned with her post, fine. You could’ve contacted her directly. Even if you wanted to contact her employer – why would you bring her child into it?
_”Was it ethical for you to email me privately and post it on your blog without asking me?”_
If you’re referring to the very first email I ever sent you, then yes, it was. I’ve noticed you have a tendency to rudeness when you think there’s no chance of you being overheard.
I come from a tradition of taking personal responsibility for what I say. I say nothing in an email that I wouldn’t object being discussed elsewhere. I do respect the privacy of those who email me if they specifically request it and I expect those I specifically ask to respect my privacy to do the same.
I can’t answer for what JP has or hasn’t done as I have no idea what that may or may not be beyond whats been discussed on here.
I’m also asking you with all due respect to stop using your ‘outrage’ as an excuse to answer the questions I asked you. I managed to answer the question you posed me.
I’d also like to ask people to at least try and stick to the point of this thread, either Wakefield or the points JB has diversified this thread into – discussing legal issues between commenters is massively beyond the scope of this blog. If anyone has a legal issue with anyone else then I really suggest they take it up with them. Offline.
I asked the thread participants nicely not to discuss legal issues between commenters Sue. So don’t.
Sorry, Kev. That was just too dirty not to comment on. JP is a slug. I’m sure that you’ll delete this post as well. As long as it’s someone on your side who looks bad, it has to be deleted, right?
-Sue M.
No Sue, this one won’t get edited or deleted. Because you didn’t do what I asked you not to.
I am however, getting sick to death of the chip on your shoulder. I didn’t delete anybody from ‘your’ side as they made their posts before I asked them to refrain from commenting on legal issues between commenters. You lack such self control so I edited your post.
Its not a matter of sides. Get over yourself.
My post was not really a discussion about legal matters. It was more a commentary on inappropriate behaviour which I believe that JP engaged in. However, I agree that I posted after you asked people not to. I apologize. I’m over myself. Hopefully, JP follows my lead.
-Sue M.
JP, I don’t know exactly what happened here but your vax blog seems like a separate issue – it is worthy and should be continued. I hope you keep it up.
Once more with feeling please all: *discussions about legal matters between commenters are beyond the scope of my blog*.
If anyone wants to talk about it then thats what email is for.
The effects of Wakefield’s actions are still having far-reaching consequences. Because he was paid to get specific results by a lawyer to bolster a lawsuit… the uptake of MMR went down. In todays news the rise of mumps is way up, especially in a group of people who are the most likely to suffer infertility:
http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=2304032005
Should anyone think that “measles is just a mild childhood disease”, think upon the hundreds of dead children here:
http://www.thetidenews.com/article.aspx?qrDate=11/25/2005&qrTitle=Measles%20kills%20500%20children%20in%20Katsina&qrColumn=NATION
(Sorry, Kev, if this is what you were talking about by legal matters between posters. Feel free to delete.)
Anon: I struggeld for a bit before deciding to edit this. What you wrote may be entirely valid but thena gain so might what Ashleigh Anderson wrote (whos posts on this subject I’ve also deleted). My personal opinion is that I doubt very much that JP has done much wrong but when there are threats of legal action flying around I don’t really want to get into a prolonged discussion.
Sorry to all who’ve commented and seen stuff removed.
K.
A commentary on looking at the relatives risks of the MMR versus the actual diseases, and the shortage of flu vaccines:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/main.jhtml?xml=/health/2005/11/28/hjuniord28.xml&sSheet=/health/2005/11/28/ixhfeatures.html
It has this quote: _Research is complicated and, often, in boiling it down to a few easily digested sound bites, the full complexity and meaning of the information is lost in the media. It is worth remembering that sometimes a little bit of knowledge can be far more dangerous than the very crisis it concerns. _
Any chance this debate is capsulated in a video. This is cool stuff and would love to use it in a seminar I teach. If anyone can channel me to a source where both sides of this issue are presented I’d be grateful.
Thanks.
Sean
sdc14@psu.edu
Hi Sean,
The only video I know of would be the Dispatches programme for Channel 4 that Brian Deer was a part of. You could try contacting Channel 4 directly I guess – http://www.channel4.com/contact_us.html