Morrissey and NME in court after four-year row
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.A battle over the words of one of Britain's most celebrated lyricists was re-ignited in court yesterday. Morrissey's libel case over an article about his attitude to immigration should be thrown out as it was "not a genuine bid for vindication", a judge heard.
The former Smiths frontman, who once sung that he bore more grudges than lonely high court judges, is suing the NME and its former editor, Conor McNicholas, over a November 2007 interview and has claimed they deliberately tried to characterise him as a racist.
Morrissey, 52, was not at London's High Court to hear the magazine's counsel, Catrin Evans, ask for the action to be "struck out" as an abuse of process. She told Mr Justice Tugendhat that Morrissey's explanations for "doing nothing" to progress the claim were "unconvincing". "The court can infer from this that there has been such a delay that is not a genuine bid for vindication," she said.
Ms Evans said that if the case was to get to trial, the magazine was likely to be at risk of serious prejudice in defending it.
Morrissey's counsel, David Sherborne, said the onus to move an action along was not entirely on the claimant. The hearing was adjourned until tomorrow. PA
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments