Political blogger and commentator Richard Millett, who was suing former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn for libel, has dropped his case.
A post made Tuesday to Mr Corbyn’s Twitter reads: “The libel claim brought by Richard Millett against the Rt Hon Jeremy Corbyn MP has been settled. Mr Corbyn has paid no damages, has made no apology and has given no undertakings concerning repetition of the words complained of. No costs have been paid by either party to the other as part of this settlement, save in respect of an outstanding order of the Court of Appeal from April 2021. Neither party will be making any other comment about the case.”
— Jeremy Corbyn (@jeremycorbyn) September 27, 2022
Mr Millett launched legal action against Mr Corbyn over remarks he made during an interview on BBC’s Andrew Marr Show in 2018 when he was leader of the opposition.
During the broadcast, Mr Corbyn was asked if he was an antisemite before being shown a recording of a speech he made in 2013 in which he referred to “Zionists” who “don’t understand English irony”.
Responding to the question, Mr Corbyn referred to two people having been “incredibly disruptive” and “very abusive” in the same year during a House of Commons meeting at which Manuel Hassassian, then Palestinian representative to the UK, was speaking.
Though he was not mentioned by name, Mr Millett argued that he was defamed because national media coverage led to him being identifiable to viewers as one of those referred to.
Court documents indicate that Mr Corbyn, who was due to give evidence in the two-week-long trial in October, was defending himself against allegations of antisemitism and intended to mount a “truth defence”.
The case was settled on what is called a ‘drop hands’ basis - which means both sides pay for their own costs - except for Mr Corbyn requiring to cover the costs of the appeal, which is understood to be upwards of £100,000 each.
Supporters of Mr Corbyn crowdfunded over £400,000 for his case.
In April this year, the Court of Appeal rejected Mr Corbyn’s challenge against a High Court judge’s findings over preliminary issues in the case, while the Supreme Court denied permission to appeal one month later.
