温馨提示：本站仅提供公开网络链接索引服务，不存储、不篡改任何第三方内容，所有内容版权归原作者所有
AI智能索引来源：http://www.5rb.com/case/turcu-v-news-group-newspapers-ltd-no-2
点击访问原文链接

Turcu v News Group Newspapers Ltd (No.2) - 5RB Barristers

进入原网站 导航首页
Turcu v News Group Newspapers Ltd (No.2) - 5RB Barristers Call 5RB+44 (0)20 7242 2902 Menu About us Our work People Barristers Support team Recruitment Resources Cases News Publications Articles 5RB Talks Links Contact Contact us Enquiry Visit us Urgent injunctions Complaints procedure Register for 5RB updates Barristers Cases Turcu v News Group Newspapers Ltd (No.2) Reference: [2005] EWHC 799 (QB)

Court: Queen's Bench Division

Judge: Eady J

Date of judgment: 4 May 2005 Summary: Libel - Justification - Video evidence - Privilege against self-incrimination - CFAs

Download: Download this judgment

Appearances: Adam Wolanski KC (Defendant) 

Instructing Solicitors: Farrer & Co for the Defendant

Facts A Romanian who entered UK under an assumed name sued the News of the World over allegations that he was party to a conspiracy to kidnap Victoria Beckham. The Defendants pleaded justification. The trial proceeded in unusual circumstances. The Claimant was absent from the country during the trial depriving the Defendants of the opportunity to cross-examine him and to substantiate his case that the journalists dishonestly fabricated evidence. The Defendants, whose journalists had inflitrated the ‘gang’, relied on video evidence demonstrating the Claimant’s participation in certain serious crimes and suggesting a plan to kidnap Victoria Beckham. One protagonist relied on by the Claimant to explain the tapes invoked the privilege against self-incrimination and gave no evidence.

Issue Whether the following allegations were substantially true:
(i) There was a dangerous criminal gang; (ii) The Claimant was a member of that gang; (iii) The gang was planning to kidnap Victoria Beckham; and (iv) The Claimant was involved in that planning; and whether the ransom and kidnap plans were real, contemplated crimes and not part of an elaborate deception or ‘sting’.

Held Upholding the defence of justification as substantially if not wholly true,
(1) The Claimant was willing to participate in criminal activities and to make a contribution, in particular, to the discussions about the proposed Beckham kidnap.
(2) The Claimant’s case that the Defence evidence amounted to ‘idle pub banter’ was unconvincing. The hoax explanation needed to be fully explained from the witness box and tested in cross-examination. There had not been a ‘set up’ on the part of the News of the World. (3) There was no ‘gang’ but a loose association of criminals who worked together when it suited them. The Claimant himself was found to be a petty criminal. (4) There were inaccuracies and sloppy reporting in that the kidnap plot was hardly an advanced plan, but these did disturb the fact that the Defendant had justified the ‘core of the libel’. (5) The investigative journalist had not ‘picked on asylum seekers’ and this allegation was merely a flawed vehicle to aggravate damages.

Comment There was little the Claimant could do to counteract the video footage. He had returned to Romania before the trial leaving his advocate to proceed on instructions given before departure. This aspect clearly troubled the Judge as the Claimant could give no evidence himself. Nor did the only other protagonist who could have done so; Dr Pasaraenu, whose witness summons was discharged by the Judge on grounds of self-incrimination. The case is bound to bring CFA funded cases right back into the spotlight.

Links Alleged kidnap plotter loses libel action - MediaGuardian
Beckham "kidnapper" loses case - Reuters
Beckham 'kidnap' man loses case - BBC
Beckham: libel bid man loses claim - itv.com
5rb.com">Man cleared over Beckham kidnap plot - 5rb.com

Share Quick linksUrgent advice Enquiry Register for 5RB updates Latest news 5RB Hosts BVL, PASS and MTAttB Placement Students Read more

Judgment in TPI on Meaning in Belafonte v NGN Read more

High Court hears the first application to strike out a claim as a SLAPP under CPR 3.4(2)(d) Read more

Jonathan Scherbel-Ball reappointed to Advisory Council on National Records and Archives Read more

Phone hacking limitation trial begins Read more

TPI on Meaning in Belafonte v NGN Read more

£50,000 damages and an injunction awarded in TikTok libel claim Read more

Sunday Times granted transparency order in care proceedings about fabricated or induced illness Read more

View news archive Latest cases Bradley v CM & others [2026] EWHC 125 (Fam)

Optosafe Limited & Anr v Robertson [2026] EWHC 12 (KB) [2026] EWHC 12 (KB)

Blake v Fox [2025] EWCA Civ 1321

Solicitor General v Yaxley-Lennon [2024] EWHC 2732 (KB), [2025] EWCA Civ 476 [2025] EWCA Civ 476

Wei & Ors v Long & Ors [2025] EWHC 158 (KB) [2025] EWHC 158 (KB)

Iqbal v Geo TV Limited [2024] EWCA Civ 1566

View all cases Follow us @5RB Email* PhoneThis field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged. 5 Gray’s Inn Square Gray’s Inn London WC1R 5AH T 020 7242 2902

Barristers regulated by the Bar Standards Board

Site Map Privacy Policy Disclaimer Credits

智能索引记录