Andrew Bridgen wants to “clear his name” after allegedly being accused of antisemitism in a “malicious” social media post by former health secretary Matt Hancock, the High Court was told.
The MP for North West Leicestershire is bringing a libel case against Mr Hancock over a January 2023 tweet that followed Mr Bridgen posting a comment about Covid-19 vaccines.
A judge was told that on January 11, Bridgen shared a link to an article “concerning data about deaths and other adverse reactions linked to Covid vaccines”, and stated: “As one consultant cardiologist said to me, this is the biggest crime against humanity since the Holocaust.”
Hours later, Mr Hancock wrote on Twitter – now known as X – that “disgusting and dangerous antisemitic, anti-vax, anti-scientific conspiracy theories spouted by a sitting MP this morning are unacceptable and have absolutely no place in our society”.
Mr Bridgen believes “every person reading the tweet knew it was about me”, that it was “seriously defamatory and untrue” and intended to cause “grievous harm” to his reputation, the court was told.
At a preliminary hearing in London on Friday, lawyers for Mr Hancock argued the claim against him should be thrown out as it did not have “a realistic prospect of success” and due to the “lack of a properly articulated case”.
No honest person could hold the view that Mr Bridgen is antisemitic when there is no evidence at all that he is
Christopher Newman, representing Andrew Bridgen
The West Suffolk MP’s legal team said it was “hopeless” to argue that a reader of his tweet – which echoed comments made earlier in the day in Parliament – would have assumed it referred to Mr Bridgen.
Christopher Newman, representing Mr Bridgen, said in written arguments that the independent MP was “extremely unhappy about what happened and the effect it has had on him, which is why he wishes to clear his name”.
He said that as a health minister who promoted the vaccine rollout, Mr Hancock’s actions were “activated by malice” and “he was willing to break the law because he has a motive to discredit Mr Bridgen”.
The barrister continued: “That is because Mr Bridgen’s work for his constituents is starting to reveal evidence which could potentially have professional consequences for Mr Hancock.”
Mr Hancock’s tweet allegedly meant “Mr Bridgen is antisemitic” or he advanced “antisemitic theories”, which were “obviously extraordinarily damaging imputations”, the court was told.
Mr Newman said “no honest person could hold the view that Mr Bridgen is antisemitic when there is no evidence at all that he is”.
The barrister added: “Mr Bridgen was citing a cardiologist, who by the use of the word ‘since’ was making the point that the Holocaust was more serious. The very opposite of Holocaust minimisation.”
The court was told Mr Bridgen had the Tory whip removed the day of his tweet and “no-one was confused” about who Mr Hancock was referring to in his own post.
“He was almost certainly referring to the Conservative MP who had just had the whip withdrawn for ‘misinformation about the vaccine’. ie Mr Bridgen,” Mr Newman said.
The barrister told the hearing the loss of the whip was a “massive event” that would have been known by “just about everybody” following a Conservative Party press release.
Mr Newman said an “overwhelming body of evidence” made it “obvious” that Mr Hancock’s tweet – allegedly viewed by 4.2 million people – referred to Mr Bridgen and suggested this was “highly likely” to be admitted by the ex-health secretary in his as yet unfiled defence.
The lawyer said it meant Friday’s proceedings were an “entirely arid debate” about how a legal point is proved, with the issues being about “clarification”.
Aidan Eardley KC, representing Mr Hancock, said in written arguments that “no reasonable reader” would conclude his tweet “uniquely” referred to Mr Bridgen.
He said Mr Bridgen’s “defective” arguments “fail to set out any reasonable basis for contending” Mr Hancock’s tweet referred to him.
“Even if, generously, some degree of knowledge about (Mr Bridgen’s) political activities and interests were ascribed to the reader, it would still be unreasonable for such a reader to jump to the conclusion that, of all possible MPs, (Mr Hancock’s) tweet was about (Mr Bridgen),” the barrister said.
He added there were some 650 MPs and “all of them are free to express views about vaccines”.
Mr Eardley said: “(Mr Bridgen’s) case, that a reasonable reader, aware of his track-record as a vaccine-sceptic, would, on that basis alone, understand (Mr Hancock’s) tweet as reference to (Mr Bridgen), is hopeless.”
The barrister said that some of the alleged issues with Mr Bridgen’s case could be amended, adding that it was up to the judge to decided whether to give him the opportunity to do so.
Referring to the timing of the tweets and Mr Bridgen losing the whip, Mr Eardley later told the hearing that it was “utterly fanciful to suggest that in less than two hours, Mr Bridgen’s new found status as an ex-Tory MP had become cemented in the mind of his acquaintances”.
Mr Bridgen was ultimately expelled from the Conservative Party in April 2022 over his social media post.
He joined actor Laurence Fox’s Reclaim Party but later quit the group over a “difference in direction”.
Mr Hancock, who served as health secretary during the height of the Covid-19 pandemic, lost the Tory whip over his appearance on I’m A Celebrity… Get Me Out Of Here! in 2022.
The hearing before Mrs Justice Steyn concluded on Friday, with the judge saying she would issue her written judgment at a later date.
You may also like: ‘Fund crumbling public services with a wealth tax’ – Green MP Caroline Lucas
