That Max Mosley High Court Ruling

Monday 28th July 2008

Of all places to hear it, I caught the news in Italian while speeding through Verona in a Fiat taxi. The driver, who clearly thought he had the company's sports car brand underneath his right foot was making the most of a clear road out to Brescia airport. My Italian is non-existent and I wasn't really paying much attention to the radio until I suddenly heard "Max Mosley" and "News of the World" and "video" and a word that sounded like "Sodom".

I had no idea if he'd won or lost but clearly the verdict was out. What was even more interesting was that this was a three-minute news bulletin on a commercial pop music radio station. So if it made the briefest of news reports, it was clearly BIG news in Italy.

Returning to Inglaterra I was able to read the full judgement by Mr Justice Eady from the Royal Courts of Justice. Stretching to over 200 points, it was slightly more interesting reading than the FIA technical regulations, but there were some interesting bits to pull out for those with a knowledge of F1.

What was clear was that the News of the World couldn't prove any kind of link between Max Mosley's S&M sessions and Nazism, other than that they both used German as a language and were both highly involved in imprisonment.

Come to think of it, the latter must come up all the time in those who like bondage, humiliation and torture. You don't get S&M scenarios based around a visit to the Garden Centre or on a boating trip round Brownsea Island - dungeons, prisons, caves etc must be a pretty regular theme.

But I digress. Here are some of Mr.Justice Eady's points from the judgement and they include references to News of the World reporter, Neville Thurlbeck, the "claimant" Max Mosley - also known as "Time Barnes" and "Mike" and Mr Warby who was the News of the World's barrister in the court case.

53. Mr Thurlbeck also relied upon the fact that the Claimant was "shaved". Concentration camp inmates were also shaved. Yet, as Mr Price pointed out, they had their heads shaved. The Claimant, for reasons best known to himself, enjoyed having his bottom shaved - apparently for its own sake rather than because of any supposed Nazi connotation. He explained to me that while this service was being performed he was (no doubt unwisely) "shaking with laughter". I naturally could not check from the DVD, as it was not his face that was on display.

67. There was, of course, plenty of spanking, and references to "judicial" penalties, but the only passage which is relevant for this purpose relates to an occasion when one of the women was lying face down on the sofa while being given intermittent and rather lack-lustre strokes with a strap. There seems to be some sort of game involving rivalry between blondes and brunettes. At one point, the dark-haired woman lying on the sofa raises her head and cries out "Brunettes rule!" Within a moment or two, a voice from off-camera can be heard (accepted to be that of Woman A, who is indeed blonde) gasping out words to the effect "We are the Aryan race - blondes".

68. Not surprisingly, this has been fixed upon by the Defendant as being a reference to Nazi racial policies. It is said that the reference to "Aryans" cannot bear any other interpretation.

69. When asked about this, the Claimant said that he had no recollection of any such remark being made and, indeed, that it was perfectly possible that his hearing aids would not have picked this up in all the excitement. This naturally invites a certain degree of scepticism, although there is no doubt that the Claimant is a little deaf (as emerged during the course of his evidence) and does wear hearing aids.

73. Mr Warby placed considerable reliance, both in submissions and in cross-examination, upon the fact that at various stages both Woman A and the Claimant had taken steps to delete their email traffic. The position is by no means clear and the evidence was, to an extent, inhibited on the part of the witnesses who gave evidence by lack of technical knowledge about the process of email deletion. At one stage, it appears that the Claimant's lawyers obtained an expert report from Quest (Lord Stevens' organisation) which may or may not have thrown some light on the history of the deletions. Mr Warby asked for it to be produced, and the Claimant indicated that he had no personal objection, but the fact remains that it was not released. Whether it would have clarified the issues I cannot tell.

74. It seems that Woman A's deletions occurred after the publication of the News of the World story and, so far as one can tell, those of the Claimant occurred somewhere between 22 and 28 March of this year (probably no later than 24 March). They seem to have been prompted, albeit with no great urgency, by the warnings he had received that he might be under surveillance by unidentified persons with the motive of trying to undermine his character or reputation in the motoring world. These came from Bernie Ecclestone in January and from Lord Stevens at the end of February.

225. To what extent is he the author of his own misfortune? Many would think that if a prominent man puts himself, year after year, into the hands (literally and metaphorically) of prostitutes (or even professional dominatrices) he is gambling in placing so much trust in them. There is a risk of exposure or blackmail inherent in such a course of conduct. In this particular case, the evidence is that the Claimant had received a warning from Lord Stevens that he was being watched by some unidentified group of people hostile to him. This was at the end of February. He had also received a similar tip from Mr Bernie Ecclestone in January. He had taken the matter sufficiently seriously to arrange instruction for himself in spotting or avoiding surveillance. Yet he continued to arrange parties, such as those on 8 and 28 March, knowing of the heightened risk.

236. It has to be recognised that no amount of damages can fully compensate the Claimant for the damage done. He is hardly exaggerating when he says that his life was ruined. What can be achieved by a monetary award in the circumstances is limited. Any award must be proportionate and avoid the appearance of arbitrariness. I have come to the conclusion that the right award, taking all these considerations into account, is £60,000.

Frank Hopkinson

Post to del.icio.us

E-mail Article Print-Friendly Version Subscribe to Editorial RSS Feed