Harcombe/Kendrick vs Associated Newspapers – The Facts Part 2 – Zoë Harcombe

Introduction

This is the fourth note (and final for now) on the Judgment in the case between Harcombe/Kendrick and Associated Newspapers. I will quote verbatim from the Judgment as much as possible in this note, and reference the paragraphs, as this is the most reliable way in which to share findings. I will put direct quotations from the Judgment in blue and without italics. This is because the Judgment often used italics (to quote from the Articles or emails) and I need to capture these faithfully. Any emphasis in blue passages is the original emphasis, unless stated otherwise. This will also distinguish any comments from the Judgment from anything else in italics and/or quotation marks in this note.

It might help to have the full Judgment to hand while reading this. The link is here, if so (Ref 1). Remember that I’m the First Claimant, Dr Malcolm Kendrick is the Second Claimant, Associated Newspapers are the First Defendant and Mr Calman, Health Editor of the Mail on Sunday, is the Second Defendant.

This note is the second one looking at “The facts” section of the Judgment. Having looked last week at how I knew the Second Defendant, the genesis of the Articles, the preparation for the Articles, the Second Defendant’s research into our claims and the interview with Colin the case study, we move on to The Hancock Statement.