David Irving v Penguin Books and Deborah Lipstadt

From Wikisource
Jump to: navigation, search
David Irving v. Penguin Books and Deborah Lipstadt  (2000) 

JUDGMENT TO BE HANDED DOWN on Tuesday 11th April 2000 at 10.30 a.m. in Court 36, Royal Courts of Justice

CONFIDENTIAL TO COUNSEL AND THEIR INSTRUCTING SOLICITORS, BUT THE SUBSTANCE MAY BE COMMUNICATED TO CLIENTS NOT MORE THAN ONE HOUR BEFORE THE GIVING OF THE JUDGMENT.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE 1996 -I- 1113

QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION


Before: The Hon. Mr. Justice Gray

B E T W E E N: DAVID JOHN CADWELL IRVING Claimant

-and-

PENGUIN BOOKS LIMITED 1st Defendant

DEBORAH E. LIPSTADT 2nd Defendant


MR. DAVID IRVING (appeared in person).

MR. RICHARD RAMPTON QC (instructed by Messrs Davenport Lyons and Mishcon de Reya) appeared on behalf of the first and second Defendants.

MISS HEATHER ROGERS (instructed by Messrs Davenport Lyons) appeared on behalf of the first Defendant, Penguin Books Limited.

MR ANTHONY JULIUS (instructed by Messrs Mishcon de Reya) appeared on behalf of the second Defendant, Deborah Lipstadt.


I direct pursuant to CPR Part 39 P.D. 6.1. that no official shorthand note shall be taken of this judgment and that copies of this version as handed down may be treated as authentic.


Mr. Justice Gray

24 March 2005

INDEX

I. INTRODUCTION

II. THE WORDS COMPLAINED OF AND THEIR MEANING 8

III. THE NATURE OF IRVING’S CLAIM FOR DAMAGES 21

IV. THE DEFENCE OF JUSTIFICATION: AN OVERVIEW 25

V. JUSTIFICATION: THE DEFENDANTS’ HISTORIOGRAPHICAL CRITICISMS OF IRVING’S PORTRAYAL OF HITLER IN PARTICULAR IN REGARD TO HIS ATTITUDE TOWARDS THE JEWISH QUESTION

VI. JUSTIFICATION: EVIDENCE OF THE ATTITUDE OF HITLER TOWARDS THE JEWS AND OF THE EXTENT, IF ANY, OF HIS KNOWLEDGE OF AND RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE EVOLVING POLICY OF EXTERMINATION 110

VII. AUSCHWITZ 160

VIII. JUSTIFICATION: THE CLAIM THAT IRVING IS A “HOLOCAUST DENIER” 199

IX. JUSTIFICATION: THE ALLEGATION THAT IRVING IS AN ANTI-SEMITE AND A RACIST 227

X. JUSTIFICATION: THE CLAIM THAT IRVING ASSOCIATES WITH RIGHT WING EXTREMISTS 252

XI. JUSTIFICATION: THE BOMBING OF DRESDEN 261


XII. JUSTIFICATION: IRVING’S CONDUCT IN RELATION TO THE GOEBBELS DIARIES IN THE MOSCOW ARCHIVE 276

XIII. FINDINGS ON JUSTIFICATION 282

XIV. VERDICT 333

Footnotes[edit]

1 Jewish Telegraphic Agency, Nov 26, 1992.

2 Ernst Nolte, “Between Myth and Revisionism? The Third Reich in the Perspective of the 1980’s,”in Aspects of the Third Reich, ed. H.W. Koch (London, 1985) pp. 36-37, Maier, The Unmasterable Past, p.29.

3 Maier, The Unm asterable Past, p.179. n. 34

4 Martin Broszat, Vierteljahrshefte fuer Zeitgeschichte (Oktober 1977), pp. 742, 769, cited in Patterns of Prejudice, no. 3-4 (1978), p. 8.

5 Sunday Times, July 10 1977.

6 Ibid., June 12, 1977; July 10, 1977

7 Robert Harris, Selling Hitler (New York, 1986) p. 189.

8 Canadian Jewish News, March 16, 1989

9 Ibid., London Jewish Chronicle, May 27, 1983

10 Spotlight, June 1989

11 “David Irving”, Clipping Collection, Calgary Jewish Community Council, Alberta, Canada.

12 Toronto Star, April 20, 1988; Stephen Trombley, The Execution Protocol: Inside America’s Capital Punishment Industry (New York, 1992), p.85.

13 Robert Faurisson, “Foreward” The Leuchter Report: The End of a Myth: An Engineering Report on the Alleged Execution Gas Chambers at Auschwitz, Birkenau, and Majdanek, Poland (U.S.A., 1988) p.1, (hereafter cited as Leuchter Report).

14 Robert Faurisson, “The Zundel Trials [1985 and 1988],” Journal of Historical Review (Winter 1988-89), p.429.

15 Searchlight, August 1989.

16 David Irving, “Foreward”, Auschwitz the end of the Line: The Leuchter Report (London, 1989), p.6.

17 Times, London, May 11 1992.

18 Irving, forward, Auschwitz the end of the Line, p.6.

19 Times, London May 14, 1992.

20 Independent, July 11 1992.

21 Trombloy, The Execution Protocol, pp. 87-94; New York Times Book Review. Nov. 22, 1992, p.33.

22 New York Review of Books, June 15 1989.

23 Toronto Sun, Oct 15, 1992; Jewish Telegraphic Agency, Nov 16, 1992.

24 Skuse v Granada (1996) EMLR 278.

25 Pamplin v Express Newspapers (1988) 1 W.L.R. 116

26 Cassell v Broome (1972) AC 1027

27 Lucas-Box v News Group Ltd (1986) 1 WLR 147

28 Williams v Reason (1988) 1 WLR 96

29 Edwards v Bell (1824) 1 Bing 403 at 409

30 Re H (minors) (1996) AC 563

Original source[edit]

http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/judgmentsfiles/j22/queen_irving.htm