Response to Mr Moore’s threat of legal action against Luke Nash-Jones/People’s Charter: such has been reviewed by two lawyers and two law students. We were advised that it requires no formal written response, but rather to file a police report; besides which the police have stated that the correspondence address given by Mr Moore is that of a third party. Below we state our position.
There is also no inference nor innuendo that the existence of the mentioned upcoming judicial review is anything other than an application stage to the High Court. What the article asks the readership to decide for themselves is if the action being taken by Mr Moore and his organisation have the merit in the first instance to put a case of this description forward.
We defend whatever we published, both on the grounds that such be true (accurate) or substantially true, and on the basis of honest opinion, and, finally, there is an exemption in s32 of the Data Protection Act 1998 for journalistic material in the public interest, and this defence would protect us in any claim, since Mr Moore claims to currently be in the application stage for a major judicial review, regards Brexit, a matter of great public interest, especially to our pro-Brexit audience, and the validity of such grounds for judicial review has been publicly questioned by Mr Caine, the leader of a pro-Brexit political party, who is a politician of similar, perhaps more public prominence, to Mr Moore.
Moreover, any claim that Mr Moore makes would be heard under the provisions of the Defamation Act 2013 and section 3 of the act makes provision for “Honest Opinion” all of the criteria of which are satisfied in the article.
The question asked “SCAM?” is not a statement of fact and very clearly not with regard to Mr Moore nor the existence of the upcoming action, but is in fact on the merits of the legal action indicated. With regards to the constitutional convention and the definition above, the article asks the reader to decide if the action being taken is bogus, the definition of the adjective of the word Scam. The legal position that the People’s Charter has been given supports that the action can be seen as bogus as in terms of constitutional convention the High Court would not allow for the case to be heard as Parliamentary Sovereignty is supreme.
It is a long held legal principle of the Sovereignty of Parliament as defined by the UK Parliamentary website as; Parliamentary sovereignty is a principle of the UK constitution. It makes Parliament the supreme legal authority in the UK, which can create or end any law. Generally, the courts cannot overrule its legislation and no Parliament can pass laws that future Parliaments cannot change.
The mechanism for the repeal of Act in question is already going through the Houses of Parliament making another argument of the case being a moot point and a bogus action.
The People’s Charter does not accept that defamation has taken place. The MBGA News article in question will remain up on its Facebook page(s) and website(s). However, an editorial review has taken place and the wording “Scam?” can be replaced with the wording “Valid?” if such would in the spirit of journalism encourage Mr Moore take up our offers to publish why he believes courts can ignore parliamentary sovereignty. No other amendments will be made.
Further, a legal firm has already suggested Mr Moore’s threat of legal action against us of £100,000 is not paid to him is probably “extortionate”, while another advised we make a report to the police, who have opened an investigation. We advise Mr Moore carefully consider such a demand, given that under section 21 of the Theft Act 1968, blackmail consists of making an unwarranted demand with menaces with a view to making a gain or causing a loss – we understand that a third party who received a similar demand from Mr Moore has made a report to the police. By section 21(3) Theft Act 1968, the maximum sentence for blackmail is 14 years.
In addition, warning is given that sharing personal information of members of the People’s Charter probably would be deemed to contravene article 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998 (c42).
Finally, notice is given that if legal action is taken against Mr Jones and/or the People’s Charter this action will be of a malicious nature as it is completely unfounded in law. Both parties have the right to file a malicious prosecution cases against you and this right is reserved.