Ruling marks end of two-year battle for officer accused of lying by Tory MP over incident at Downing Street gates

MP and former chief whip Andrew Mitchell has paid £80,000 in libel damages to the police officer he called a “fucking pleb” during an altercation at the gates of Downing Street.

It marks the end of a two-year battle for PC Toby Rowland, who was accused of lying by the Conservative MP.

At the end of a costly high court libel trial last year, brought by the Sutton Coldfield MP against the Sun newspaper, a judge ruled that Mitchell had used the “politically toxic word pleb” in reference to Rowland and other officers at the gates.





Mitchell lost his case against the Sun, which reported the incident based on Rowland’s account. He also failed in his defence to the counter libel action brought by the police officer.

The judge said he believed Rowland, a member of the diplomatic protection group, who has stuck to his account of what took place on 19 September 2012 after the MP was refused permission to cycling through the main gates of Downing Street and forced to wheel his bicycle through a side entrance.

On Wednesday, Rowland’s solicitor, Jeremy Clarke-Williams, told Mr Justice Warby: “The payment of £80,000 damages by Mr Mitchell sets the seal on PC Rowland’s vindication, as well as providing compensation for the injury to his reputation and the distress caused to him and his family over many months.

“PC Rowland never felt that the events in Downing Street were anything more than a minor incident. He was not responsible for the publicity which followed and would have much preferred that the whole matter had never entered the public domain. He now simply wishes to be left in peace to continue his police career.”

Clarke-Williams, from Slater and Gordon, said Mitchell “has abandoned the other defences he had raised to my client’s claim and consequently terms of settlement have been agreed”.

He said the police officer had been left with “no option” but to bring the action after Mitchell accused him of lying over what happened that day.

Two days after the incident on 19 September, Mitchell phoned Rowland and apologised to him for his behaviour at the gate, which the officer accepted. Leaked police logs appeared to back up Rowland’s account and the MP later resigned.

However, later CCTV footage of the event appeared to throw the police version into doubt. A subsequent police investigation called Operation Alice found officers other than Rowland, including one who was not present during the row, had lied about it.



One officer was sent to jail and three were sacked. Clarke-Williams said that his client sought legal action when the MP repeated his accusation that Rowland had lied, even after Operation Alice had cleared him of all wrongdoing.



The lawyer said: “However, on the very same day as the DPP’s announcement, Mr Mitchell held a televised press conference accusing PC Rowland of having lied in his account of what Mr Mitchell had said at the gates of Downing Street and implying he should have been prosecuted.”



Last November, after an eight-day trial, high court judge Mr Justice Mitting said he was satisfied the MP “did speak the words alleged or something close to them as to amount to the same including the politically toxic word pleb”.

Mitchell, who was ordered to pay £300,000 in costs to the Police Federation, representing Rowland, and the News Group Newspapers, for the Sun, is also liable for the costs of the case, estimated in excess of £3m. Neither man was in court on Wednesday.

A specialist costs judge will make a detailed assessment of the legal bills to work out exactly what the MP will have to pay.

The MP, described in court as a “Jekyll and Hyde’ character, had sworn on oath that he did not use the word “pleb” and said the allegations were a “web of lies”. The Sun’s report quoted him as saying: “Best you learn your fucking place – you don’t run this fucking government – you’re fucking plebs.”

In his summing up, Mitting described Rowland as a “rather old-fashioned police officer” who was “well-suited to his job”.

“He is not the sort of man who had the wit, the imagination or the inclination [to] invent in the spur of the moment what a senior cabinet minister would have said to him,” he said.

After the ruling last November, Rowland said: “Even before this trial began I had been cleared of any wrongdoing by four extensive and wide-reaching investigations including a criminal one. I am delighted that here again my innocence, integrity and reputation as a police officer has been recognised.”













