Je suis James: Pianist finally allowed to tell his story of sexual abuse

22 May 2015 by

Guardian: James Rhodes and friends including Benedict Cumberbatch outside Court

Guardian: James Rhodes and friends including Benedict Cumberbatch outside Court

James Rhodes v OPO (by his Litigation Friend BHM) and another, [2015] UKSC 32

The Supreme Court has handed down its judgment in an appeal by the celebrated concert pianist, James Rhodes. You can read the judgment here and watch Lord Toulson’s summary here.

The case considered whether Mr Rhodes could be prevented from publishing his memoir on the basis that to do so would constitute the tort of intentionally causing harm. Those acting on behalf of Mr Rhodes’ son were particularly concerned about the effect upon him of learning of details of his father’s sexual abuse as a child.

Background

The draft of Instrumental includes accounts of the physical and sexual abuse of Mr Rhodes by the boxing coach at his school, who died before a trial could take place. The attacks, which included repeated rapes, left Mr Rhodes with a spinal injury. As the Supreme Court judgment records, Mr Rhodes explains in the book that he “was used, fucked, broken, toyed with and violated from the age of six. Over and over for years and years”.

The book then charts Mr Rhodes’ years of drink and drug abuse, his self-harm and suicide attempts, as well as his admissions to psychiatric units. It goes on to describe how music helped him to turn his life around. As Lord Toulson told the court on Wednesday, it has been, for Mr Rhodes, “nothing short of a lifeline.”

Part of the book refers to Mr Rhodes’ first marriage to an American novelist and the son they had together. They later divorced. A residence and contact order dated June 2009 included a fairly widely-drafted recital by which the mother and Mr Rhodes agreed to use their best endeavours to protect the son “from any information concerning the past previous history of either parent which would have a detrimental effect upon the child’s well-being.” Mr Rhodes’ son, who is now twelve years old, has been diagnosed with Asperger’s syndrome, ADHD, dyspraxia and dysgraphia.

The first draft of the book was leaked to the mother in February last year. Subsequent changes were made, such as the use of pseudonyms. But in the mother’s view these did not go far enough. She was concerned that the book would cause psychological harm to her son if he came to read it or extracts from it.

This prompted High Court proceedings, eventually taken over by the son’s godfather. An injunction was sought prohibiting publication or requiring deletion of a large number of passages. A consultant child psychologist gave evidence that the son was likely to suffer severe emotional distress and psychological harm if exposed to the material in the book because of his difficulties in processing information.

In July 2014, Mr Justice Bean (as he then was) dismissed the application for an interim injunction – a predictable outcome, one might think. However, the Court of Appeal reversed that decision in October 2014 but decided that only one issue could go to trial: whether publication would constitute the tort first described in Wilkinson v Downton, a 118 year-old High Court judgment. In that case, a man had, in 1897, chosen the wrong east London pub landlady on whom to play a practical joke. Not prepared to laugh off the suggestion that her husband had broken both his legs at the horse racing and needed her to get him home, she responded by suing Mr Wilkinson. He was held to have committed the tort of intentionally causing harm. Mr Justice Wright opined:

everyone has a right to his personal safety, and … it is a tort to destroy this safety by wilfully false statements and thereby to cause a physical injury to the sufferer.”

The Court of Appeal also granted an interim injunction restraining Mr Rhodes from publishing certain information including “graphic accounts of… sexual abuse he suffered as a child.

The Supreme Court

The Supreme Court unanimously allowed Mr Rhodes’ appeal. The leading judgment was given by Lady Hale and Lord Toulson, with Lord Neuberger issuing a concurring judgment.

Lady Hale and Lord Toulson explained that the tort in Wilkinson v Downton consists of three elements: (1) a conduct element, (2) a mental element and (3) a consequence element. Only the first two were in issue in this case.

In order for the conduct element to be made out, the claimant would have to point to words or conduct directed towards the claimant for which there was no justification or reasonable excuse. For Lady Hale and Lord Toulson, the answer was clear:

“There is every justification for the publication. A person who has suffered in the way the appellant has suffered, and has struggled to cope with the consequences of his suffering in the way that he has struggled, has the right to tell the world about it. And there is the corresponding public interest in others being able to listen to his life story in all its searing detail.”

While recognising that the right to disclosure is not absolute because a person may, for example, owe a confidentiality duty, the Court was clear that there is no general law prohibiting the publication of facts which will distress another person. Lady Hale and Lord Toulson found it hard to envisage any case where words which were not deceptive, threatening or abusive could be actionable under the tort recognised in Wilkinson v Downton. The Court of Appeal’s analysis had been “novel” in two senses: first, the material was not deceptive or intimidatory but autobiographical; secondly, the objections were not directed towards the substance of the material but to the vivid form of language used to express it.

The Supreme Court also considered that the injunction granted by the Court of Appeal prohibiting graphic language was “wrong in principle and in form.” It was insufficiently clear what “graphic” meant and, in any event, a right to convey information to the public includes a right to choose the language in which it is expressed in order to convey the information most effectively. The Supreme Court quoted one particularly emotive paragraph in which Mr Rhodes described the effect of rape upon him when he was just six years old.

In terms of the mental element of the tort, there had to be an intention to cause physical harm or severe mental or emotional distress; recklessness would not suffice. In Mr Rhodes’ case there was no evidence that he intended to cause psychiatric harm or severe mental or emotional distress to his son, and no justification for imputing an intention to cause harm on the basis of harm being foreseeable. Intention is a matter of fact and, while it may be inferred from evidence, it is not to be imputed as a matter of law.

The Court concluded that there was no real prospect of establishing either the conduct element or the mental element. As Lord Neuberger explained:

“While there is some (disputed) evidence that they could cause the claimant serious distress, the contents of the defendant’s book are not untrue, threatening or insulting, they are not gratuitous or unjustified, let alone outrageous, they are not directed at the claimant, and they are not intended to distress the claimant.”

The Court allowed the appeal and restored the order of Mr Justice Bean. It maintained an order granted earlier in the proceedings protecting the identity of the child.

Mr Rhodes described the judgment as “an amazing, resounding endorsement” of the right of sexual violence survivors to tell their stories:

One of the hardest things has been the secrecy involved; not being able to talk about it directly or indirectly, the threat of imprisonment should I even reveal there was ongoing litigation.”

It is difficult to know for sure what effect Mr Rhodes’ book may have on his son’s well-being, but one hopes that in the years to come he might feel a sense of pride in his father’s decision to share publicly the story of how he developed from a walled-off, cement-shoed, lights-out automaton aged six, to an internationally-acclaimed musician and a vocal witness to the violent sexual abuse to which he was subjected.

Instrumental will be published next week and is dedicated to Mr Rhodes’ son.

 

 

6 comments


  1. Laurence says:

    Interesting side-swipe from Lord Neuberger – “… common law should be generally consistent with the Convention and it would be arrogant to assume that there may be no assistance to be gained from the Strasbourg jurisprudence” (para 120). Two fingers to HMG?

  2. […] As already mentioned, on Wednesday 20 May 2015, the Supreme Court handed down judgment in the case of OPO v James Rhodes ([2015] UKSC 32).  We had case comments from Lucy Moorman and Dan Tench.  There were also case comments on the UKSC Blog and the UK Human Rights Blog. […]

  3. Daniel Smith says:

    There are names for blokes like that.

  4. John Allman says:

    Reblogged this on JohnAllman.UK and commented:
    In my experience, those who testify to having engaged in homosexual behaviours during childhood or adolescence, but not in their maturity, are one of the most vehemently hated minorities in society today, not former victims whose testimony of abuse people want to hear.

    The verbal abuse typically heaped upon those who out themselves as ex-gay in this way, even when their gay years came to an end before they reached adulthood, and were inflicted upon them by older people of the same sex, who perhaps went on to chose a gay (and perhaps child-abusive) way of life permanently for themselves, is simply vitriolic.

    Survivors of homosexual abuse during childhood and adolescence aren’t even allowed to publish their testimony of abuse they “got over” on the sides of London buses! Many people HATE underage victims of homosexual abuse who speak out, accusing US of “hate speech”, because we out ourselves as survivors of underage sodomy, as this man has done.

    This ex-gay survivor can expect a lot of hate mail, if my experience is anything to go by. He should expect to be shouted down, by strangers who insist that they should tell HIS story, using THEIR approved, politically correct terminology.

  5. Bonnar says:

    James Rhodes is my superhero :) Really glad that you did it! respect.

  6. l8in says:

    Reblogged this on L8in.

Comments are closed.

Welcome to the UKHRB


This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates


Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.

Subscribe

Categories


Tags


Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption AI air pollution air travel ALBA Allergy Al Qaeda Amnesty International animal rights Animals anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 article 263 TFEU Artificial Intelligence Asbestos Assange assisted suicide asylum asylum seekers Australia autism badgers benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery British Waterways Board care homes Catholic Church Catholicism Chagos Islanders Charter of Fundamental Rights child protection Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners civil partnerships climate change clinical negligence closed material procedure Coercion Commission on a Bill of Rights common law communications competition confidentiality consent conservation constitution contact order contact tracing contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus coronavirus act 2020 costs costs budgets Court of Protection covid crime criminal law Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation DEFRA deportation deprivation of liberty derogations Detention Dignitas diplomacy disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Equality Act 2010 Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Facebook Facial Recognition Family Fatal Accidents Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office foreign policy France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage gay rights Gaza Gender genetics Germany Google Grenfell Gun Control Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Human Rights Watch Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests insurance international law internet inuit Iran Iraq Ireland islam Israel Italy IVF ivory ban Japan joint enterprise judaism judicial review Judicial Review reform Julian Assange jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid legal aid cuts Leveson Inquiry lgbtq liability Libel Liberty Libya lisbon treaty Lithuania local authorities marriage Media and Censorship mental capacity Mental Capacity Act Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery morocco murder music Muslim nationality national security naturism neuroscience NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges nuisance Obituary ouster clauses parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury physician assisted death Piracy Plagiarism planning planning system Poland Police Politics Pope press prison Prisoners prisoner votes Prisons privacy Professional Discipline Property proportionality prosecutions Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries quarantine Radicalisation rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania round-up Round Up Royals Russia saudi arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Secret trials sexual offence shamima begum Sikhism Smoking social media social workers South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing starvation statelessness stem cells stop and search Strasbourg super injunctions Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance sweatshops Syria Tax technology Terrorism tort Torture travel treason treaty accession trial by jury TTIP Turkey Twitter UK Ukraine universal credit universal jurisdiction unlawful detention USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe

Disclaimer


This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.

%d bloggers like this: