header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
19 January 2018 / Sir Geoffrey Bindman KC
Issue: 7777 / Categories: Features , Defamation
printer mail-detail

Call my bluff

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
nlj_7777_bindman

Geoffrey Bindman explains why deceiving the court is not a good idea

Those who are caught out by the media in embarrassing indiscretions may be tempted to deny everything and resort to bluff. Threatening to sue for libel is one way to stop the story spreading.

In 1971, when I was Private Eye’s solicitor, the editor, Richard Ingrams, contrived what became known as the ‘Arkell v Pressdram defence’ to bogus libel claims. Lord Goodman ended a typically pompous letter demanding redress from the Eye on behalf of an aggrieved Mr Arkell, an official of Granada Television, as follows: ‘His attitude to damages will be governed by the nature of your reply.’

Ingrams replied: ‘The nature of our reply is as follows: fuck off.’ Ingrams had the evidence that the Eye story about Arkell was true. The bluff went no further.

The sword of truth

But the stakes can be very high, and some prominent public figures have thrown caution to the winds by pursuing dishonest libel actions to trial. In

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
Sponsored by
Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Partner joinscorporate and finance practice in British Virgin Islands

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Firm strengthens children department with adoption and surrogacy expert

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Media and technology expert joins employment team as partner in Cambridge

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Your magistrates’ court needs you!
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll