Social media posts by Laurence Fox calling two people "paedophiles" likely would not have been taken seriously by many readers, the Court of Appeal has heard. The actor-turned-activist is challenging libel rulings that ordered him to pay £90,000 each to his accusers.
Fox was successfully sued by Simon Blake, now chief executive of Stonewall, and drag artist Crystal over a Twitter row in October 2020. The dispute began when Fox called for a boycott of Sainsbury's over the supermarket's decision to mark Black History Month.
Fox challenges libel ruling
Blake and Crystal, whose real name is Colin Seymour, called Fox "a racist" during the exchange, along with broadcaster Nicola Thorp. Fox responded by calling Blake and Seymour "paedophiles" in tweets that led to the libel claims.
In two judgments last year, Mrs Justice Collins Rice ruled in favour of Blake and Seymour, awarding them £90,000 each in damages. The judge dismissed Fox's counter-claims against the pair and Thorp over tweets accusing him of racism.
Appeal focuses on context
The 47-year-old attended the first day of his appeal hearing at the Court of Appeal in London on Monday. Patrick Green KC, representing Fox, argued the original judgment should be quashed due to "errors of approach" by the judge.
Green said the judge wrongly decided damages without considering "the likelihood that many or the vast majority of readers would have not have taken them seriously, particularly in their context". He argued the judge failed to account for Fox's apology or alleged misconduct by Blake and Seymour in "exaggerating" harm.
Defence claims rhetorical use
Fox told the original trial in November 2023 that his use of the term was "rhetorical" and "there was no inference at any point that I thought they were a paedophile". He said he was "diminishing the ridiculousness of calling me a racist".
Green told the appeal judges on Monday that Fox was clearly being rhetorical. "He's not saying 'I am a racist and they are paedophiles' and everyone understood it in that way," the barrister argued.
Claimants defend original verdict
Adrienne Page KC, representing Blake, Seymour and Thorp, said Fox's appeal was "lacking in merit". She argued the "paedophile" tweets "conveyed factual imputations of the most serious defamatory character" rather than opinions.
Page said there was "no meaningful retraction or apology" by Fox and defended the £90,000 damages as "unexceptionable". She argued the judge was "fully entitled" to reach her conclusions about the serious reputational impact of Fox's tweets.
Hearing continues Tuesday
The barrister said Fox's original case had been "largely devoted to hypothesising" different scenarios about how his tweets might have appeared to various readers. After "very careful and conscientious evaluation", the judge was not persuaded by this argument.
The hearing before Lord Justice Dingemans, Lady Justice Elisabeth Laing and Lord Justice Warby is expected to conclude on Tuesday.
(PA) Note: This article has been edited with the help of Artificial Intelligence.
