JDW hits back over ‘inaccurate’ comments on traveller case

The judgment in the case: Irish Traveller Movement in Britain and Others -V- J D Wetherspoon Plc​ was published on 18 May 2015, following a trial at Central London County Court.​

The judge found in favour of nine of the claimants and awarded eight of them damages and costs. The judge rejected nine further claims and awarded costs to Wetherspoon in respect of those claims.

Wetherspoon has apologised to the successful claimants and is reviewing its training.

A number of newspapers (in print) and newspaper websites stated the following:

“Wetherspoon thinking was “suffused with the stereotypical assumption that Irish Travellers and English Gypsies cause disorder wherever they go.””

'Incorrect'​

Wetherspoon chairman, Tim Martin, said: “This statement is incorrect. His Honour Judge Hand QC did not make these comments about Wetherspoon. He said (paragraph 149, page 40; Wetherspoon italics):

“In my judgment the whole of the thinking of [the pub manager of the Coronet at the time], in so far as it can be inferred from the evidential material, was​ suffused with the stereotypical assumption that Irish Travellers and English Gypsies cause disorder wherever they go.”

The judge went on to say (paragraph 161, page 43):

“I do not see any basis on which it can be argued that subsequent conduct on the part of [Wetherspoon] has added anything to the original insult. Nor do I accept that any discriminatory motive on the part of [Wetherspoon] has been proved.

The judge continued:

“On the contrary, it seems to me that this was an ill thought out strategy, which [the pub manager of the Coronet at the time] arrived at without sufficient reflection. It does not seem to me, however, that he can be said to have had a truly discriminatory motive.”

'Perplexed'​

Martin added: “I was perplexed as to how The Times, the Evening Standard and The Irish World, for example, misreported the judgment in print. Additionally The Mirror and the Islington Gazette, for example, misrepresented the judgment online.

“I am astounded to have now been shown a press release from the solicitors for the claimants, Howe + Co, which is clearly the source of the misrepresentation.

“The Howe + Co press release misleadingly suppressed the first part of the judge’s sentence, in italics, above (paragraph 149, page 40) and substituted the word “Wetherspoons”, which entirely alters what the judge said.

“Howe + Co also omitted to state that the judge did not accept that any” discriminatory motive” was proved (paragraph 161, page 43), which is an extremely important element of the judgment.

'Disturbing'​

“Since this was a case which depended heavily on evidence as to what was said at the door of The Coronet pub several years previously, and the senior partner in Howe + Co was a claimant and witness, as well as the solicitor for the other claimants, it will be deeply disturbing for lawyers and the press, in my opinion, for the judge’s words to have been misreported in this way.“

“Howe + Co also omitted to state that the judge did not accept that any” discriminatory motive” was proved (paragraph 161, page 43), which is an extremely important element of the judgment.

“Since this was a case which depended heavily on evidence as to what was said at the door of The Coronet pub several years previously, and the senior partner in Howe + Co was a claimant and witness, as well as the solicitor for the other claimants, it will be deeply disturbing for lawyers and the press, in my opinion, for the judge’s words to have been misreported in this way."