Akin Gump: Labeling An Employee "Potentially Violent" Is Libelous

The following is a news report of a recent case arising under British common law.

A woman labelled "potentially violent" by a council after she complained about a vandalised flower bed has won £12,000 in libel damages.

Published: 25 Jun 2009

Jane Clift sued Slough Borough Council and Patrick Kelleher, its head of public protection, after her name was placed on its Violent Persons Register.

The High Court heard that Miss Clift, 43, contacted the council in August 2005 after she witnessed a small boy misbehaving in the town's Rest Gardens.

She told jurors that the boy "was in the middle of one of the big flower beds, uprooting plants, pulling the heads off flowers, generally squashing everything."

Miss Clift, of Birmingham, said that when she approached five adults to complain, one of the men became abusive.

The former care worker called police, who spoke to the child's mother and advised Miss Clift to contact the council.

Hugh Tomlinson QC, for Miss Clift, said that when she did get in touch, the authority's Anti-Social Behaviour Coordinator Fozia Rashid was "very dismissive" and suggested Miss Clift had been provocative.

He said: "She is trying to be a good citizen, report anti-social behaviour, do the right thing, and is being told it is all her fault."

In a letter of complaint about Miss Rashid, Miss Clift wrote: "I felt so affronted and so filled with anger that I am certain I would have physically attacked her if she had been anywhere near me.

"I truly am not of that nature and so, surely, this should act as a wake-up call to the borough."

Mr Kelleher, the council's head of public protection, told Miss Clift that a marker would be placed against her name for 18 months as a result of her allegedly "violent and threatening behaviour".

Ms Clift brought her claim against both the council and Mr Kelleher on the basis that she was libelled by the entry of her name on the council's Violent Persons Register and by an email sent to a large number of people informing them of this.

The authority and Mr Kelleher denied libel, arguing that the two claims were substantially true.

It said in court that Ms Clift was obsessed with achieving the sacking of Miss Rashid.

Miss Rashid gave evidence that Miss Clift scored "nine and a half out of 10" on the scale of difficult members of the public she had encountered.

But after an eight-day case in London, before Mr Justice Tugendhat, a jury found in favour of Ms Clift, although it rejected her claim that Mr Kelleher had been malicious.

The judge also ordered the council to meet the costs of the action, which are unofficially estimated at about £450,000.