My apologies to Dr Antonio Serrano for failing - due to pressure of work - to report his significant libel victory last week.
I'm glad to put the record straight now because, on 6 October, a high court judge awarded him £45,000 damages against the Daily Mail.
It took him a long time to secure the award. I reported way back in April 2013 that Serrano was suing the Mail over an article by its then columnist, Kelvin MacKenzie, that defamed him. The piece, published in April 2012, was headlined "A whole year of hell, thanks to a foreign doctor".
His action was hotly contested by the Mail's publisher, Associated Newspapers, but Mr Justice Dingemans, ruled in the doctor's favour.
The judge said the article stated that Serrano had reported a patient - bus driver Kevin Jones - to the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) over alcohol problems when there was no evidence to that effect.
The report to the DVLA followed a consultation between Serrano and Jones in January 2011 when Jones went to see him about pain from swollen legs. The DVLA withdrew Jones's bus driving and personal licences, and he lost his job.
The licences were reinstated in early 2012, when a letter from the DVLA stated that "from the information we have received you satisfy the medical standards for safe driving". Jones subsequently returned to work as a bus driver.
In April 2012, Jones's father saw an article in the Mail by MacKenzie about foreign doctors working in the NHS and thought MacKenzie would be interested in his treatment by Serrano.
The judge said: "Mr Jones said that he thought that his experience was relevant because while Dr Serrano spoke good English it was clear to him that cultural differences, for example about sense of humour and a failure to listen properly, had played a big part in what had happened to him."
But the judge found that there was "considerable evidence to justify Dr Serrano's actions", and it was "not wrong and inappropriate for Dr Serrano to write to the DVLA". There had not been a language barrier.
He ruled that the article had defamatory meanings which "cannot be justified", and that it "cannot be defended as honest comment".
He added: "Dr Serrano said his wife was upset by the article and he had been upset and ashamed by the anxiety and distress that she had been caused and that it was particularly hurtful and insulting to be attacked on the basis that he was a foreigner with an inadequate grasp of English when he'd been given no indication that any criticism of that kind was going to be made."
Mr Justice Dingemans rejected an application for aggravated damages, which Dr Serrano's counsel, Ronald Thwaites QC, had argued should be awarded because Associated Newspapers had caused his client distress and injury to feelings by persisting with the defence of justification.
The judge said: "In my judgment the proper defence of an action is not to be taken into account in aggravation of damages in libel proceedings. Any other approach would be an impermissible interference with the vital right of the free press to defend itself, and would therefore be wrong."
In a statement after the ruling, Serrano said: "I am extremely pleased with the outcome of today's hearing. This article was irresponsible and should never have been written.
"As a family doctor I have always worked hard to provide the best treatment for my patients and local community. After a legal process that lasted two and a half years, I am now able to dedicate the rest of my time to my family and my profession."
His lawyer, Daniel Taylor of Taylor Hampton solicitors, said afterwards: "The right to a reputation is a vital human right, every bit as important as freedom of speech and a free press.
"It is right that doctors, or indeed any other dedicated professional, should know that where they have been subject to untrue and unjustified allegations by a tabloid or any other publication, the law is there to protect them."
Sources: PA Media Lawyer/Daily Mail/Pulse/Private information
.jpg?w=600)
