Legal Demand for Retraction
Uploaded by
Jonathan BishopLegal Demand for Retraction
Uploaded by
Jonathan BishopSlater
+Gordon
Lawyers
50-52 Chancery Lane
London
WC2A 1HL
DX 202 London Chancery Lane
Tel: 020 7657 1555
Fax: 020 7657 1557
www.slatergordon.co.
uk
26 May 2016
Your Contact: Angus Young
Assistant: Karen Woolford
PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL
The Editor
Crocels News, LLC
Ty Morgannwg
PO Box674
Swansea
SA19NN
DirectTel: 020 76571425
Direcl Fax: 020 76571420
Email:[email protected]
Our Ref: AY001/UM1284779
And by email: [email protected]
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
Dear Sirs
Our Client: Constable Stuart Mann
We represent Constable Stuart Mann, of Dyfed Powys Police. Our client has consulted us in
respect of defamatory articles published on the Crocels News website .
Publications complained of
On 27 June 2015 the Crocels News website published an article by Jonathan Bishop entitled
Llanelli police officers deny assault and, on 16 November 2015, published an article by the
same author entitled Police brutality victim in hunger strike. These articles are available here:
http://news .crocels.com/news/7177 /complaint-pc-stuart-mann -ps-mike-thomas-Jyn-carter/
http://news.crocels .com/news/7821 /yolande-rees-hopkins-hunqer-strike-aqainst-pc-stuart-man
n/
Meaning
The 27 June 2015 article, Llanelli police officers deny assault, contains the following two
paragraphs:
It is believed that the PC Stuart Mann and PS Mike Thomas acted inappropriately in how
they approached and handled Mr Edwards. Mobile phone evidence was said to have
recorded PC Stuart Mann telling Edwards to "f**king wank over your Bible ." It is
understood that PC Stuart Mann then told Edwards that he had contacted his mother
without his consent and that he should be "ashamed" of himself. Mr Edwards's mother is
known to the police.
It is further believed that PS Mike Thomas told Mr Edwards that he would make his life
'hell." Both Officers are believed to have battered Edwards at the police station, stripping
him naked and giving him a black eye. Both police officers are refusing to take
responsibility for these reported actions .
Stater and Gordon (UK) LLP isa Limited Liability Partne~hip re9istered in England and Wates (OC371153). Rgistred office : 50/52 Chancery Lane, London WC2A IHL.
Slater and Gordon (UK) LLPi, authorised and regulated by the Solicito~ Regulation Authority; and authorised and regulated by the financial Conduct Authority for insurance mediation activity
The natural and ordinary meaning of these words is that our client is guilty of stripping and
assaulting Mr Edwards as well as seriously unprofessional conduct, rudeness and intolerance,
particularly in telling Mr Edwards to "f**king wank over [his] Bible".
Clearly the allegation of assault is by far the most serious but, in placing this allegation in the
context of the other allegations the article as a whole alleges that our client is a corrupt
policeman. Such a meaning also implies that he is unfit to be a police officer, and that he should
be prosecuted for committing criminal offences.
The 16 November 2015 article Police brutality victim in hunger strike victory contains the
following paragraph:
A woman who fell victim to the attacks of a rogue police officer has had hope of a
reprieve after her MP, Nia Griffiths, took up her case after she collapsed due to taking
part in a hunger strike.
Your article later identifies our client as the 'rogue' police officer mentioned.
This is a clear and unequivocal allegation that our client is guilty of attacking a woman and
police brutality. In the following paragraph of your article the author underlines this allegation
stating that:
Yolande Rees-Hopkins is believed to be one of a number
from Dyfed-Powys police officer, PC Stuart Mann 553.
of people subject to violence
The natural and ordinary meaning of this article is that our client is guilty of using unjustified
violence against a number of people including Ms Rees Hopkins. As with the earlier article such
a meaning also infers that he is unfit to be a police officer, and that he should be prosecuted for
committing criminal offences .
Our client's position
The 27 June 2015 article refers to Graham Edwards. Mr Edwards was arrested by our client on
25 October 2013 for assaulting one Dr Lyn Carter at a medical centre in Carmarthen. When
arrested he also assaulted Police Sergeant Mike Thomas . He was charged with both offences,
tried, convicted and sentenced to ten weeks imprisonment. His conviction was upheld on
appeal.
The 16 November 2015 article refers to Yolande Rees-Hopkins. Ms Rees-Hopkins was arrested
on 21 September 2011 by Police Constable Geris Davies for assaulting a paramedic during an
incident during which Ms Rees-Hopkins was reported missing by her husband. She was later
found at a neighbour's house and paramedics attended as she was suspected of having taken
an overdose. Our client was present with PC Davies when Ms Rees-Hopkins kicked and
assaulted the paramedic and following the arrest he provided a witness account. Ms ReesHopkins was initially charged but the CPS withdrew the proceedings after Ms Rees-Hopkins
claimed she was mentally ill.
Following these incidents our client was made aware that both of these individuals made blanket
complaints to the Dyfed Powys Police Professional Standards Department ("PSD") about all of
the officers and staff involved in the arrests. The PSD found in September of 2013 that our client
had no case to answer in respect of the allegat ions made by Ms Rees Hopkins and, in April of
2015, they found he had no case to answer in respect of the allegations made by Mr Edwards .
Our client did not assault either Mr Edwards or Ms Rees Yolande. His contact with both of these
individuals was minimal and throughout his contact with them our client conducted himself with
complete professionalism. It follows that it is untrue that our client is unfit to be a police officer or
that he should be prosecuted.
These allegations are untrue, they are defamatory and they have caused serious harm to our
client's reputation.
The circumstances of publication
Your journalist has demonstrably made no effort whatsoever to confirm these stories. In respect
of each article he has clearly relied entirely on a single, second-hand and wholly unreliable
source. Given that the sources had an axe to grind, seeking some kind of independent
confirmation should be the first and most basic step a responsible journalist would take.
Similarly no-one at Crocels News sought comment or explanation from our client. These are
hugely serious allegations made entirely without substance or foundation and you did not give
our client an opportunity to respond before publishing them. Crocels News have made no effort
whatsoever to provide balance or outline our client's position.
Equally Crocels News did not contact the Dyfed Powys PSD for comment; they concluded their
investigations into the incidents complained of some considerable time prior to your publications
and would have informed your journalist of these conclusions.
Next Steps
You have made serious and unfounded allegations and our client cannot allow them to lie on the
record. You should be under no illusions that our client is determined to restore his reputation.
Your website states that [w]e are committed to creating a better educated world, where people
have information that is fair, balanced and accurate. In light of this sentiment and having
considered the content of this Jetter, we trust that you will wish to resolve our client's complaint
swiftly and amicably.
If so, your proposals to do so should include the following terms:
1. the removal of the offending articles;
2. the removal of related articles, tweets, facebook posts and any other relevant
publications;
3. a formal apology to our client, in terms to be agreed by us, to be prominently published
on the Crocels News website;
4. an undertaking not to repeat the same or similar allegations in the future; and
5. payment of our client's legal costs.
Our client's attitude to his additional entitlement to damages will be informed by the speed, tone
and content of your response.
All our client's rights are reserved in this matter and should you fail to meet the requirements set
out above our client will not hesitate to take such action as he sees fit to protect and vindicate
his reputation including, if necessary, pursuing formal proceedings in libel.
We await hearing from you as a matter of urgency and in any event not later than 4:00pm on 9
June 2016.
Yours aithfully
