CLAIMS DISMISSED

Pro-independence Wings Over Scotland blogger loses Kezia Dugdale defamation battle in Scotland’s highest civil court

A PRO-independence blogger has lost his defamation battle against Kezia Dugdale in Scotland’s highest civil court.

Stuart Campbell, who blogs as Wings Over Scotland, believed the former Scottish Labour leader made false statements about his character in in her Daily Record column.

It came after she wrote that Mr Campbell had sent “homophobic” tweets.

He claimed this was incorrect and that readers would wrongly conclude that he didn’t like gay people.

The case centred on a tweet posted by Mr Campbell during the Conservative Party conference in 2017.

He said that Conservative MSP Oliver Mundell “is the sort of public speaker that makes you wish his dad had embraced his homosexuality sooner.”

In a later column, Ms Dugdale accused him of spouting “hatred and homophobia” towards others from his Twitter account.

Mr Campbell initially sued Ms Dugdale for £25,000 at Edinburgh Sheriff Court. However, Sheriff Nigel Ross QC ruled against him, prompting the blogger to take the case to the Inner House of the Court of Session.

In a judgement issued today, judges Lord Carloway, Lord Menzies and Lord Brodie upheld Sheriff Ross’s decision. They ruled the remarks made by Ms Dugdale were fair comment.

Lord Carloway wrote: “These elements are correctly classified by the sheriff as comment on that tweet. They are an expression of a view about the pursuer’s attitudes, which are based upon a reading of what he wrote in the tweet.

“The court agrees with the sheriff’s conclusion that this was indeed fair comment. The pursuer’s tweet was a derogatory remark containing a gratuitous reference to Oliver Mundell’s father’s homosexuality.

“The defender’s comments may have been expressed in strong, if not inflammatory, language. The fact that they are in “vituperative or contumelious language” does not avoid the defence.”

Mr Campbell, of Bath, Somerset, had previously denied his tweet was a homophobic reference and insisted it was “satirical criticism” of Oliver’s public speaking skills.

But Sheriff Ross had dismissed Mr Campbell and his attempts to win £25,000 of damages from Ms Dugdale.

Mr Campbell’s advocate Craig Sandison QC told the court earlier this year that Ms Dugdale referred to an “unspecified number of homophobic tweets”. Mr Sandison said the case focused on the Oliver Mundell tweet and that Ms Dugdale wasn’t able to show any more homophobic tweets.

He said: “This is not a minor inaccuracy in substance. The ordinary reader will assume there had been tweets plural, and this would have skewed their reading of the comment.”

Mr Sandison also said that Ms Dugdale’s comments weren’t protected under the principle of fair comment because she hadn’t considered evidence which showed Mr Campbell wasn’t homophobic.

Ms Dugdale’s advocate Roddy Dunlop QC called on the judges to dismiss the appeal. He said readers would have understood they were reading an opinion piece and that Ms Dugdale was entitled to conclude that Mr Campbell was homophobic.

He added: “When Mr Campbell decided to deride Oliver Mundell by focusing on his father’s sexuality, he left himself open to commentary that doing so was homophobic.”

Mr Dunlop also said that while Mr Campbell “lives and dies” by freedom of expression, he spent his time online “belittling” those who had the “temerity” to disagree with him.

Lord Carloway said that if they had agreed with Mr Campbell, they would have awarded him £5,000.