Press freedom campaigners claimed a “landmark victory” today after a High Court judge threw out a libel action by a multi-millionaire Tory donor against a former Conservative MP.
The verdict by Mr Justice Nicklin came after a long-running legal battle between telecoms tycoon and philanthropist Mohamed Amersi and Charlotte Leslie, ex-MP for Bristol.
Mr Amersi, who along with his Russian partner has given £750,000 to the Tories, backed Boris Johnson’s leadership campaign and has dined with King Charles, claimed he had been defamed by Ms Leslie in a secret dossier.
They fell out in 2020 after she claimed he tried to use his wealth to take over a Tory group run by her which aims to boost UK-Middle East relations.
She sent a dossier which raised questions about Mr Amersi’s past business links Russia to a handful of senior Tories and figures in the intelligence services.
Ms Leslie, a former journalist, claimed the information was accurate and that she acted in the public interest.
Mr Justice Nicklin, one of the UK’s most senior media judges, said today that Mr Amersi had “failed to prove serious harm” had been inflicted on him by Ms Leslie. He ruled that the libel case could not proceed further.
Explaining why he was striking out the libel case, Mr Justice Nicklin’s ruling said Mr Amersi “should not be given a further opportunity to see whether he can plead a case of serious harm to (his) reputation…” because there was “no realistic prospect” that he could do so.
He said it was “fanciful” for Mr Amersi to claim new evidence could be found to support his claim.
Moreover, the public cost of pursuing the case had to be considered. The judge said he had a duty to “ensure that judicial and court resources are appropriately and proportionately used in accordance with the requirements of justice”.
Responding to today’s verdict Mr Amersi, 62, said he was “bitterly disappointed” the judge had ruled against him.
He claimed he had been “denied justice” and said Mr Justice Nicklin had provided “effective immunity to those who publish serious falsehoods to small but influential groups of people. This cannot be right or fair”.
Mr Amersi said he will consider appealing.
Ms Leslie said: “This judgment speaks for itself. I am delighted to have this vindication after two years of legal action against me. It is a good day for freedom of speech.”
Mr Amersi argued throughout that Ms Leslie’s dossier damaged his reputation and has spent two years trying to sue her in three separate legal actions believed to have cost millions in total.
Former Conservative Cabinet minister David Davis said the ruling was a “landmark victory for press freedom and fair comment”.
Mr Davis said: “This is a great day for journalists and others who face intimidating legal action by wealthy individuals who use the law to stifle the pursuit of the truth and legitimate comment in the public interest.”
Mr Amersi issued proceedings against Ms Leslie, 44, and the Conservative Middle East Council (CMEC), of which she is the director, after she accused him of trying to take over her group, which came with an offer of £500,000-a-year funding.
When she rejected his move, Mr Amersi tried to set up a rival Tory Middle East organisation, COMENA, she alleged.
He issued data protection and libel proceedings against her through his solicitors Carter-Ruck, accusing her of making “false and defamatory statements” and demanding a full apology.
The dispute also led to a rift between Mr Amersi and Conservative Party chiefs.
He demanded the repayment of donations after alleging he was excluded from exclusive Tory events.
He also claimed he was not given auction prizes he had bid for at party functions, including breakfast with Mr Johnson, and that Party officials were told not to invite him to the Conservative Winter Ball.
Mr Amersi has controversially defended using his personal fortune to gain influence in political and Royal circles as “access capitalism”.
Mr Amersi’s statement said: “I am bitterly disappointed that Mr Justice Nicklin has today refused me permission to continue with my libel action against CMEC UK & MENA Limited (CMEC) and its director Charlotte Leslie, on the ground that I could not prove that I had suffered serious harm to my reputation.
“Ms Leslie perceived COMENA to be a rival to CMEC, and published a series of false and defamatory allegations about me to her friends and contacts in political and diplomatic circles, including senior figures within the Conservative Party who held positions of influence over the decision to form and affiliate COMENA. As a result, the COMENA project was thwarted, which was a sad indictment for the Party and the country.
“If the judge’s interpretation of the law is correct, it provides effective immunity to those who publish serious falsehoods to small but influential groups of people, as it has done in this case. This cannot be right or fair and I feel l have been denied justice.
“My purpose in bringing legal proceedings was only ever to find out exactly what Ms Leslie said, to whom she said it and to clear my name.
“The judge rightly acknowledged that my evidence was clear in stating that my objective was obtaining vindication. I have been denied that opportunity as a result of today’s judgment. I shall be taking advice on the prospects of an appeal.”
In a Commons debate held under parliamentary legal privilege last year Mr Davis said Mr Amersi had attempted to “bully Miss Leslie into silence”.
Mr Amersi wanted to run CMEC “because he saw it as his route to a knighthood,” said Mr Davis.
He accused Mr Amersi of the sustained “legal harassment” of Ms Leslie.
Mr Davis added: “We are rightly proud of our legal system in this country. However, what is attractive to legitimate businessmen is also attractive to those with nefarious intentions: there are those with exceptionally deep pockets and exceptionally questionable ethics.
“These people use our justice system to threaten, intimidate and put the fear of God into British journalists, citizens, officials and media organisations.
“What results is injustice, intimidation, suppression of free speech, the crushing of a free press, bullying and bankruptcy.”
More than 70 newspaper editors, publishers and media lawyers called on the government last year to take action to stop wealthy individuals from using their fortunes to exploit British courts, silencing investigative journalists with strategic lawsuits against public participation (Slapps).
They urged ministers to tackle the “endemic” use of Slapps, which they said was hampering not only investigative journalism but also ‘law enforcement’s ability to investigate wrongdoing promptly and effectively’.