Daily Mail's false details may have bolstered public interest claim, says High Court

Mr Justice Tugendhat said that claims, identified in Court as false, that the woman had been promoted by former RBS boss Sir Fred Goodwin "would tend to mislead the reader into believing that it would be in the public interest for the identity of the lady to be disclosed".

That would make it easier for newspapers to argue that the injunction was unjustified and against the public interest, the judge said.

Goodwin is alleged to have had an affair with the woman but successfully won an injunction protecting his and hers identity. MP John Hemming identified Goodwin in Parliament but the woman's identity remains a secret.

The Mail knowingly published information to make the woman less identifiable, the court heard.

"[The Daily Mail's lawyer] stated that certain further information in the fifth paragraph about the lady's job is false," Mr Justice Tugendhat said.

"[The Daily Mail's lawyer] stated that information was known by [the Daily Mail] to be false. He said it was a deliberate falsehood," Mr Justice Tugendhat said.

The allegation that Goodwin promoted the woman bolstered the case that identifying the woman was in the public interest, the court heard.

"It laid the supposed factual basis for the public interest argument advanced by Mr Hemming in his piece on page 7, and the editorial on page 14, as well as of the headline on page 1," Mr Justice Tugendhat said.

The woman was not promoted whilst Goodwin was RBS boss, her lawyers said. The Daily Mail did not disagree, the judge said.

"In the third and eighth paragraphs there is information given that she had been promoted whilst Sir Frederick Goodwin was in charge of RBS," Mr Justice Tugendhat said. "[The woman's lawyer] informed the court that this information is also false. [The Daily Mail's lawyer] did not disagree," the judge said.

"As to this information [The Daily Mail's lawyer] said he did not know whether [the Daily Mail] knew it to be false or not, at the time when it was published. The effect of the false information, according to [the Daily Mail's lawyer], was that it would tend to make a reader less likely to identify the lady," Mr Justice Tugendhat said.

Mr Justice Tugendhat made his comments in a ruling which refused to refer a contempt of court charge against the Daily Mail to the Attorney General. Judges can refer contempt cases to the Attorney General, who investigates contempt charges in England and Wales, if a publication is alleged to have interfered with the administration of justice.

The alleged mistress of Sir Fred made the referral request, arguing that the Mail had published information that could lead to her being identified and that as a result the paper had violated an injunction that exists to preserve her anonymity, the ruling said.

"The reason that I decline to make the reference is that in my judgment it would not assist the Attorney-General," Mr Justice Tugendhat said in his High Court ruling.

"The lady is free to refer the matter to the Attorney-General herself, and the Attorney-General is free to act of his own motion," the judge said.

Technology law news is also available from Bootlaw, a free resource for technology start-ups, with regular events hosted by Pinsent Masons.