Baby P's Natural Father Sues Sunday Paper The People For Libel

Baby P Dad Sue Libel

First Posted: 27/02/2012 16:35 Updated: 27/02/2012 16:38   PA

The natural father of Baby P is suing the publishers of a Sunday newspaper for £130,000 damages for printing "one of the gravest libels imaginable".

A judge was told the father, who cannot be named for legal reasons, was wrongly accused in The People of being a sex offender convicted of raping a 14-year-old girl.

The newspaper's publishers, MGN Ltd, later apologised and offered to pay damages.

However the offer came late and was not enough to compensate the father, referred to as "KC", for the suffering and distress the "completely false" reports had caused, said his QC James Dingemans.

The allegations were contained in two paragraphs in a crime supplement about Baby P's mother, who had separated from KC.

They appeared in The People on September 19 2010 in an article entitled "Tortured to death as mum turned a blind eye".

Baby P, later named as Peter Connelly, was just 17 months old when he was found in a blood-splattered cot at his mother's home in Tottenham, north London, in August 2007. He had more than 50 injuries.

Tracey Connelly was jailed in 2009 after admitting causing or allowing his death.

Her boyfriend Steven Barker and their lodger, Jason Owens, who was Barker's brother, were found guilty at the Old Bailey of the same charge.

Mr Dingemans said the allegations about the natural father in the wake of the Baby P tragedy were "shocking and appalling".

However MGN treated him "as if he didn't really matter".

Heather Rogers QC, appearing for MGN, told the High Court: "This was a mistake that MGN regrets and it has apologised to the claimant, and I repeat that apology on its behalf in this court."

However she denied KC had been badly treated, or that MGN had conducted any kind of "campaign" against him, or dismissed his legitimate complaint.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST UK

The natural father of Baby P is suing the publishers of a Sunday newspaper for £130,000 damages for printing "one of the gravest libels imaginable". A judge was told the father, who cannot be name...
The natural father of Baby P is suing the publishers of a Sunday newspaper for £130,000 damages for printing "one of the gravest libels imaginable". A judge was told the father, who cannot be name...
Filed by Dina Rickman  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 35
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Post Comment Preview Comment
To reply to a Comment: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to.
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
02:20 PM on 02/28/2012
£130,000? What's that? 0.0000000001% of the weeks takings? When Newspapers do things like this, for gain, there should be punative damages based on actual takings for a week, month or longer. The Proceeds of Crime Act allows us to grab the assets of drug dealers and it's been used to get assets from people who breach planning laws, so why not say that printing lies like this to sell newspapers is in the same category? If the newspapers thought that every single penny they took on a particular day was going to the Government they'd be a bit more careful.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
janno000
10:40 AM on 02/28/2012
Be interesting to know who the scource was for this story or was it just made up. Well done for suing them.
09:35 AM on 02/28/2012
The newspapers are a disgrace they print what they feel like. How come he gets £130k for having a newspaper make an untrue accusation and yet some others get £600K for listening to phone calls. Justice gone wrong. The more money you have the more the courts will give you despite what the wrong done.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
wakyracir
My spaniel is watching you
03:33 AM on 02/28/2012
Absolutely outrageous. The People should be crucified in court if there's any justice left in this country. £130k is not enough. Not nearly enough.
03:26 AM on 02/28/2012
Where the comparison and balance? This guy gets accused of raping a child in the papers and hopes to get only 130K which he will have a hard time getting, yet another person today gets £600,000 because someone listened in on a phone call.
photo
Theatrixnyc
Remember John Lennon:Power To The People!
03:06 PM on 02/28/2012
yet another person today gets £600,000 because someone listened in on a phone call.
**
it was repeated harassment over a period of time, for that larger settlement.
03:21 AM on 02/28/2012
He only gets 130K for being accused for something he did not do that was published all over the country, having the finger pointed wherever. Yet Charlotte Church gets 600K for something that hardly anyone took notice of.

Where's the balance?
02:50 AM on 02/28/2012
At least this aspect of the Baby P case is not costing the taxpayer anything - Ed Balls involvement has already cost us over £3 million and is likely to treble before the unlawful sacking of Sharon Shoosmith finally makes it all the way to the European Court over the next few years
09:27 AM on 02/28/2012
What is unlawful about sacking a waste of space !!!
12:14 PM on 02/28/2012
Nothing if it is done LEGALLY - but in her case it wasn't and as a result the Court ruled her dismissal unlawful - legal costs to date are almost £3 million and by the time the case is finished you can probably treble that - and we the taxpayer have to pick up the costs
02:31 AM on 02/28/2012
Setting aside any personal thoughts as to what sort of 'father' this man was, he is looking for £130,000 for having the worst thing man can have said about them wrongly printed in a newspaper, and although I know the settlement included costs, Charlotte Church gets £600,000 because someone listened to messages on her mobile phone. Something is very wrong here. The legal system is FUBAR and the country is going to hell in a handcart......
03:16 AM on 02/28/2012
Well said! But...going??? Nah, we've been here a while now...lol
09:41 AM on 02/28/2012
I think you might be right......it would explain global warming too! :)
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Philduck
11:34 PM on 02/27/2012
So, Baby P was seventeen months old. Where was Dad? Did he know what was going on? If he had any shown real responsibility he would have been around and able to prevent this sad childs death.
When a young girl died through starvation in Birmingham a few years ago at the hands of her mother and boyfriend (as I recall the boyfriend had changed his name to Abuhamza) The natural father blamed social services for the death despite the fact that the mother and boyfriend were both aggressive and evasive when any social worker called at the house. The father lived locally but seemed to take no responsibilty for his own daughter.
katertaif
My wife thinks I have one fault. Everything I do!
07:20 AM on 02/28/2012
Nail on the head, A diffrent perspective on the suffering and pain that child went through; and how will he be compensated?
photo
AlanDente
Noses: made to hold glasses
09:40 AM on 02/28/2012
Exactly.

It's not as though responsibility for a child end when the relationship does.

Everyone's a victim, no one takes any responsibility any more.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
minimemo
Can I be your friend...if they let me out...
11:19 PM on 02/27/2012
However the offer came late and was not enough to compensate the father, referred to as "KC", for the suffering and distress the "completely false" reports had caused, said his QC James Dingemans.

In comparison to the suffering and distress to his son, I'm digging deep and can't really feel this guys pain....
katertaif
My wife thinks I have one fault. Everything I do!
07:21 AM on 02/28/2012
I'm with you.
09:30 PM on 02/27/2012
It doesn't take much to work out this guy's name from available information.
10:08 PM on 02/27/2012
it wasprobably ken connelly the gro have not blocked the birth ceritifcate or their marriage
it was disgraceful the natural father has lost his job he deserves all the best .
09:24 PM on 02/27/2012
Perhaps baby p should be suing all the people that led to his death
09:17 PM on 02/27/2012
People were not "Suddenly" sold PPI. It was sold to them, whether appropriate or not and under heavy pressure from commission earning bank employees. What was sudden was that they found out the facts and banks have been forced, snivelling and complaining all the way, to refund these unjustidfied and extortionate fees
cantabria
my default position is wrong
06:44 AM on 02/28/2012
Rubbish, people were "offered" PPI, I was offered PPI loads of times over the years, I said no thanks every time. Why are people always being compensated for being stupid? As for this guy, if £130,000 isn't enough then get your lawyer to ask for more.
07:33 AM on 02/28/2012
Well the courts don't agree with you, that is why compemastion has been paid. It was RULED that people had been misinformed, misled and cheated and those responsible have had to pay for their illegal conduct. Lucky you for not being caught, lucky them for getting their LEGAL RIGHTS
majdf18148
I have nothing to declare but my curiosity
08:18 PM on 02/27/2012
I am not a fan of the "sue em all" culture and I think too many people are. Witness the tens of thousands who all claim whiplash, the tens of thousands who were all "suddenly" missold PPI (some undoubtedly did suffer whiplash and some were missold PPI) but, in my opinion, certainly not as many as have claimed they were. I digress, in this particular instance I think £130k to be small recompense for the abomnation of a slur visited upon this guy by The People. I can only imagine the trauma that false accusation cost him, the social ill- effect it would have had upon him. To label an innocent man the rapist of a 14 year old girl is one of the worst slurs that could be published in a national newspaper. The people would do well to pay him quickly and get the hell out of the hole they have dug for themselves.
09:35 PM on 02/27/2012
Do you really think that our tight fisted banks would have paid out on any claims that were unjustified? The expensive and high profit product was forced on customers, even the self-employed who couldn't claim on it. The banks were caight out and had no choice other than to settle
cantabria
my default position is wrong
06:47 AM on 02/28/2012
I don't agree, I was offered PPI on loans, credit cards etc, I said no every time, end of story. Why did I say no? Because it was very expensive and didn't pay out when needed. Not difficult to understand. Same with pensions, no compensation when the plans go bust, it's your fault for being stupid.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
mfa11e
Tell the truth ,regardless
06:37 PM on 02/27/2012
If the statement was printed in the paper and it's incorrect they have commited libel.What they stated was extremely damaging and potenially dangerous where he could easily have been physically attacked .An apology is not enough .He should sue and the Judge should ban them for printing for a month
07:02 PM on 02/27/2012
He has sued them for libel. MGN has paid the man damages. Did you actually read the piece?
07:25 PM on 02/27/2012
Hmm, not quite right - he is suing, MGN offered damages, but "too late and not enough to compensate" The case is ongoing
07:33 PM on 02/27/2012
Before criticising others, best to get your own facts right first :-)