england-and-wales defamation theft restitution surveillance
What are the legal implications of Josh Pieters &amp; Archie Manners&#39;s &quot;gag&quot; against Piers Corbyn?
<p>See this video. <a href="https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=BmNyNivlEVo" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=BmNyNivlEVo</a></p>
<p>Two YouTubers disliked piers Corbyn political agenda, so they contacted him to express their bad faith interest in donating financially to the cause. They arranged a meeting which they secretly filmed and then heavily edited and published in which they told him  that they were investors in Astrazeneca who felt guilty about their profits from the vaccines and showed and presented him with £10K of real cash under the premise that they were giving it to him. Legally it seems like they had lawfully and irrevocably transferred ownership of that money to Corbyn. They then surreptitiously took it back while he wasn't looking and swapped it with monopoly money.</p>
<p>Firstly it seems as though this is criminal theft as well as civilly speaking unlawful conversion or trover if not worse.</p>
<p>Secondly the covert filming of the encounter seemingly between public grounds and on the property of a private business without Corbyns knowledge or consent would raise serious legal questions.</p>
<p>Finally, their publishing of the heavily edited footage with the explicitly avowed goal of damaging his reputation would raise  issues of defamation.</p>
<p>What are the criminal and civil implications of this antic?</p>

<h2>Gift or Contract?</h2>
<p>Well, neither.</p>
<p>Since one party had no intention of parting with the money supposedly being offered, this lacks the intent to be a gift and also the intent to create legal relations to be a contract. Further, Mr Corbyn is clear that he can only accept the offer if it is unconditional - he also has no intention of entering into a contract.</p>
<p>The real cash was substituted <em>before</em> it was given to Mr Corbyn so it was never transferred into his possession so questions of theft, conversion, or trover do not arise. Mr Corbyn might have <em>believed</em> he was being given cash but his beliefs are irrelevant. He might even believe that a promise was made to transfer the cash but a promise unsupported by consideration on his part is unenforceable.</p>
<h2>Illegal recording</h2>
<p>It is not <a href="https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4093108/illegal-record-conversation-uk-permission/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">illegal</a> to record a conversation you are part of in the UK and it is not illegal to film places where there is no reasonable expectation of privacy.</p>
<p>It may be illegal to release an audio recording publically but journalists (a broad category into which these YouTubers fall) can make a defence of public interest. It is certainly arguable that exposing that a vocal, public anti-vaxer is willing to take profits allegedly derived by a vaccine company is in the public interest.</p>
<h2>Defamation</h2>
<p>Statements that are substantially true cannot be defamatory. Editing <em>can</em> make even truthful statements no longer &quot;substantially true&quot; if their effect is to create a manifestly false impression. For example <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_8uM0zOBuSw" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_8uM0zOBuSw</a>.</p>
<p>However, the version of the video that I have <a href="https://www.express.co.uk/celebrity-news/1470513/piers-morgan-twitter-piers-corbyn-coronavirus-vaccination-prank-youtube-latest-news-update" rel="nofollow noreferrer">located</a> does not appear to do that.</p>
<p>Notwithstanding, to be defamatory, a statement &quot;caused or is likely to cause serious harm to the reputation of the claimant.&quot; If sued, the defendants could plausibly argue that Mr Corbyn is &quot;defamation proof&quot;: that is, he has no reputation which could be substantially harmed by this prank.</p>
<h2>Lying</h2>
<p>It’s perfectly legal to lie unless there is an intention to cause loss or damage or to obtain a financial reward i.e. fraud. Not an issue here.</p>
