Matt Hancock libel case thrown out by Court of Appeal

A libel case brought against former Health Secretary Matt Hancock has been dismissed by the Court of Appeal. The ruling means the claim will not proceed to trial.

Background to the Claim

Read Next in Barnet Press2 min read

Sunseeker Holiday Homes enters administration

The Hull-based manufacturer, founded in 2019, has appointed administrators, putting 76 jobs at risk.

The legal action was initiated by former Conservative MP Andrew Bridgen, who accused Mr Hancock of making a malicious online comment. This followed a post by Mr Bridgen in January 2023, where he shared an article about adverse effects of Covid-19 vaccines. Mr Bridgen added a comment attributed to a consultant cardiologist stating: "this is the biggest crime against humanity since the Holocaust."

In response, Mr Hancock shared a video of himself in the House of Commons on X, formerly Twitter, with the caption: "The disgusting and dangerous antisemitic, anti-vax, anti-scientific conspiracy theories spouted by a sitting MP this morning are unacceptable and have absolutely no place in our society." Mr Bridgen subsequently sued for libel, asserting that the comment would lead people to believe he was antisemitic.

Court of Appeal Decision

Related Borough Coverage4 min read

Enfield Town Liveable Neighbourhood scheme paused pending review

Transport for London funding for next phase is on hold as council re-evaluates project elements.

Mr Hancock had appealed an earlier High Court decision that allowed Mr Bridgen's claim to proceed to a trial. On Wednesday, three judges at the Court of Appeal ruled in Mr Hancock's favour. Lord Justice Warby, sitting with Lady Justice King and Lady Justice Whipple, stated in a judgment that the initial High Court judge had "erred in law."

The judges concluded that while Mr Bridgen's post suggested some form of comparability between the vaccine rollout and the Holocaust, it did not equate them. They noted that the Holocaust was a "deliberate genocidal campaign to eradicate an entire people for motives of ethnic or religious prejudice," whereas the Covid vaccine rollout was, on undisputed facts, "at least in part, a benevolent public health programme with the aim of saving lives."

Mr Hancock was granted a summary judgment, a legal process that concludes a claim in favour of one party without a full trial. Mr Hancock stated after the ruling that the case "should never have been brought" and that people should be able to "state their own opinions without fear of libel action."

Next Steps

Following the Court of Appeal's decision, Mr Bridgen indicated his intention to seek advice regarding the possibility of taking the case to the Supreme Court. He expressed difficulty in understanding why the written judgment did not reflect what he perceived to have occurred during the oral hearing.