This article was subject to a clarification — click here to read
THE owners of The Daily Telegraph asked a French court to condemn the Editor and media editor of The Times on a criminal charge of libel yesterday over an article published in November 2004.
Sir David and Sir Frederick Barclay also sought damages totalling €100,000 (£68,600) and costs of €60,000. Their lawyers said that they had taken action in France, where libel is a criminal offence, because British justice was too slow.
Robert Thomson, Editor of The Times, and the paper’s media editor, Dan Sabbagh, both deny the charges.
The Times’s lawyers also urged the Paris Criminal Court to reject the Barclays’ claim on the ground that the case was not being heard in the appropriate jurisdiction. They also said that the Barclays had to prove that the edition of The Times containing the contested 300-word article had actually been on sale in France.
The presiding judge, Anne-Marie Sautreau, said that the Barclay brothers, who live in Monte Carlo, claimed that The Times had “accused them of building their fortune by frequently exploiting proprietors in distress”.
Maître Yves Sicard, representing the brothers, said they had demanded a right of reply (droit de r?ponse) under French legislation, which The Times had refused. But, giving evidence, Mr Thomson said that he had offered the Barclay twins a chance to write a letter for publication. He said that they had turned down the offer.
“The appropriate way of dealing with this particular conflict would have been to have published a letter in The Times. Four times, I personally offered them that opportunity.
“I know other executives from The Times and The Daily Telegraph have had similar conversations and we have generally agreed that this was the appropriate course of action.
“The words would be their words. If they wanted to insult me, I would let them. If they wanted to insult The Times, we would publish the insults. But rather than taking this opportunity, they have chosen to take legal action and I am sorry it is taking up so much time.”
Judge Sautreau asked why the Barclays, who bought The Daily Telegraph in June 2004, had filed a lawsuit in Paris rather than in London.
Maître Sicard said they had opted for French justice because legal procedures were “very, very long” in Britain.
“The judgment is so far away from the offending publication that the offence is not repaired. In France, decisions are given after a more reasonable delay.”
He said that it was “false to suggest that they were trying to avoid the debate” by suing in France. “Quite the contrary.”
Another lawyer for the Barclay twins, Maître Bernard Vatier, said: “Our law is efficient and that is why they are taking action here.” He added: “Libel is a civil procedure in Britain and the Barclays are attached to a criminal condemnation.”
The maximum fine for libel under French law is €12,000.
Maître Vatier said that the proprietors of The Daily Telegraph were demanding €50,000 damages and €30,000 costs for the libel and similar sums for The Times’s failure to publish a droit de r?ponse.
They had pursued their case in the French courts on the ground that The Times sells at least 3,000 copies in France.
But Maître Jean-Fr?d?ric Gaultier, The Times’s counsel, said that the plaintiffs had failed to demonstrate that the edition at the centre of the case had in fact been distributed in France.
Judge Sautreau asked whether the plaintiffs’ lawyers could provide her with a copy of the newspaper in which the article was published. They said they had a photocopy, but not the newspaper.
“We don’t even have the object of the litigation,” Judge Sautreau said.
The state prosecutor, Alexandre Aubert, said: “This all seems rather complicated to me.” However, he said that the court could decide it was the appropriate jurisdiction if it could be shown that even one copy of the article in question had been available in France.
The hearing was adjourned until March 23.