Thread by @BBCPhilipSim

At Edinburgh Sheriff Court for the @WingsScotland defamation case against @kezdugdale; both are in the courtroom awaiting the arrival of Sheriff Nigel Ross

There’s a helpful background to the case in the last judgement issued - in short, he did a tweet, she did a column about it (details of both below), he says the latter was defamatory, she says it was fair comment: scotcourts.gov.uk/docs/default-s…

(I’m going to try and keep all the tweets about this case in one big thread, so if you’re strictly here for Brexit or out of context Stewart Stevenson quotes, you can just mute the thread instead of unfollowing me in a rage two hours from now)

The court is currently dealing with a case between someone and G4S, with an unexpected audience of slightly baffled politicians and journalists

Off and running in the Campbell v Dugdale case, with the former’s QC Mr Sandison clarifying some typos in the paperwork (including, somehow, reference to a “shoot em up” game, rather than a “shoot end up” one)

First witness in the Wings-Dugdale defamation case is Stuart Campbell; he explains that “for all intents and purposes I am Wings Over Scotland” - “a political campaigning website in support of Scottish independence”

Mr Campbell says the Wings website and Twitter feeds are different in character; the website is “work”, the Twitter account is more “how you would talk down the pub with people after work” (albeit still campaigning for Scottish independence)

Mr Campbell now explaining the tweet at the root of this case; he was live-tweeting the Tory conference; he says he was making a “commentary” that Oliver Mundell was “a very very poor public speaker”

Court now examining a Daily Record article about the tweet, headlined on David Mundell’s response to it; prompted by his QC, Mr Campbell recalls his response at the time that he was “Tory-phobic” rather than homophobic.

Court rattles through a series of newspaper and online articles about Mr Campbell (“the Bath-based blogger”) and the Tweet about Oliver Mundell. He says he considered it “ridiculous” and “absurd” that the tweet could be interpreted as homophobic.

Mr Sandison reads out some tweets from the @WingsScotland account which are “rather rude” about politicians; Mr Campbell says this is “what I think; if I feel anger towards a politician on TV...I express that on my Twitter feed”

Asked if Kezia Dugdale was a particular focus of his tweets, Mr Campbell says she was just “one of a number” of people he has written about; “I’ve tweeted disobliging things about just about every unionist politician in Scotland”

Court now examining a Wings Over Scotland blog titled “Kezia Dugdale is a liar”; Mr Campbell says this is a “running series” of posts about politicians “where a lie is particularly blatant and deniable”; he repeats that she has not been singled out in particular.

Kezia Dugdale is sitting near the back of the court listening while Mr Sandison and Mr Campbell read through a fairly lengthy series of Wings “fact check” posts criticising her

Mr Campbell says he doesn’t know Ms Dugdale, and that she has him blocked on Twitter. “I imagine she dislikes the website and doesn’t want to hear anything it says, but I have no first hand experience of how she feels”. He thinks unionists are “extremely hostile” towards Wings

Court now examining Ms Dugdale’s column about Mr Campbell’s tweet about Oliver Mundell (text, from previous judgement, below). This is the article he claims is defamatory.

In response to questions from his QC, Mr Campbell says he is not conscious of having abused anyone on the basis of their sexuality. Asked if he has ever “spouted” homophobia, he says: “To the best of my knowledge, not in my life.” Says he was “horrified” by Ms Dugdale’s article.

Court now examining comments by Kezia Dugdale at First Minister’s Questions, naming Mr Campbell and saying he made “homophobic comments” and “regularly spouts hatred”. He says he was at the dentist and came home to find his Twitter “alight with notifications”

Mr Campbell tells the court he was “absolutely horrified” to find he had been the subject of those exchanges at FMQs; he says it’s a “very unpleasant sensation” to find you have been discussed in such a way on live national television

Court now examining Mr Campbell’s blog post about “becoming the squirrel” (after a brief discussion of what “squirrel” means in this context). He accepts, as the blog post notes, that he had said a “mean thing” about Oliver Mundell.

“I don’t think any intelligent person could honestly interpret that Tweet as being homophobic,” Mr Campbell says. He likens it to another online comment where the writer wished Katie Hopkins had never been born (by wishing her father had “a condom and a time machine”)

Mr Campbell says jokes expressing a wish that someone has never been born (with the example of “I wish your father had pulled out”) has been “a staple joke of humanity for almost as long as there has been language”. He cites a George Takei tweet about Donald Trump as an example

Mr Campbell agrees “very much” with his QC that it is unacceptable for someone to be mocked on the basis of their sexuality; repeats that his tweet was criticising Oliver Mundell’s public speaking, not his sexuality. He says he is a “firm advocate of equal rights for gay people”.

As a court case chiefly about digital matters, this morning has involved an awful lot of wrestling with binders of paperwork, people getting lost in submission numbering and apologies for the court “not getting the benefit of” hyperlinks and embedded videos on printouts

Mr Campbell and his QC taking the court through examples of him “tweeting supportively in favour of gay rights” - he says it’s “self-evidently ludicrous” that anyone could think he’s a homophobe if they have spent any time reading his website or twitter.

Court now looking back on a comment Mr Campbell posted about a video game level being pitched at “girls and homosexuals”. He says this was “ironic and satirical” - it would be “absolutely ridiculous, laughable” to suggest this “joke comment” was homophobic

Court looking through some other Wings tweets, with Mr Campbell denying they are evidence of homophobia or transphobia. Imagine this is because we’ll be hearing more about them when Kezia Dugdale’s side puts their argument forward (probably tomorrow)

Back to Ms Dugdale’s article in the Daily Record; SC says he was “very offended...outraged. I found it hurtful.” He says his criticisms of Ms Dugdale have been “fair, if not necessarily nice” - says they’re not personal. But she “called me something that I regard as so offensive”

Mr Campbell says “I despise homophobia and all other forms of prejudice”. He says Ms Dugdale’s column about him was a “malicious and spiteful lie” and has “caused me a great deal of worry and concern” - if anything, he feels more strongly about it now than he did at the time.

Mr Campbell says the issue is that “mud sticks” - “there will be an assumption by a percentage of people that there must be something to this”. He says this damages his reputation, and to an extent the political goal that his blog campaigns for.

Citing Ms Dugdale’s defense, Mr Campbell’s QC asks him if his blogs are offensive; he says on occasion he has (at least subjectively) deliberately been offensive. He also accepts that certain people might find his posts “obscene”; “I certainly swear a lot and use sexual terms”

Mr Campbell says he “can certainly be abrasive”; he is “uncompromising”. And his output can be divisive, as all politicians can be. But he is “absolutely not” prejudiced; it’s at the core of his beliefs that everyone should have the same rights.

Mr Campbell says he chose to sue Ms Dugdale rather than the Daily Record because; “she was the person who wrote the column”. He says it’s possible that the Record hadn’t realised what exactly was in the column due to a lack of sub-editors, but Ms Dugdale knew what was in it

Mr Sandison is done, and Kezia Dugdale’s QC is now questioning Stuart Campbell. He asks if it’s fair to describe the Wings account as “caustic” and “taking no prisoners”; SC agrees. He contests whether it is “abusive”; “I would say rude”

Kezia Dugdale’s QC asks if David Mundell was “collateral damage” in Mr Campbell’s tweet about Oliver Mundell; he says that’s a ”rather charged phrase”. QC says the joke “only works because it focuses on his sexuality”

“What is it about gay people that makes them incapable of impregnation?” asks Kezia Dugdale’s QC. “Gay people usually have sex with other gay people”, replies Mr Campbell. He says reference to David Mundell and his “biology” was a “by-product of derision of his son”

Kezia Dugdale’s QC says “this joke would not have worked if David Mundell wasn’t gay”. Mr Campbell says he would have found another way of saying he wished Oliver Mundell had not been born; he rejects an assertion from QC that he was saying gay people can’t be parents

Mr Campbell repeats that he “does not believe that any intelligent person” could “honestly” believe his tweet was homophobic; on Mr Mundell’s own “implication” that it was, Mr Campbell agrees that he was saying Mr Mundell was either being dishonest or unintelligent

Kezia Dugdale’s QC going over “substantial” coverage of Mr Campbell’s tweet, a “media storm”. SC notes that “homophobic” is in quotation marks in these articles - which he says means it’s a quote or an interpretation.

Asked if he is known for being “abusive”, Mr Campbell says “it depends who you ask”. Kezia Dugdale’s QC reads out a reply SC posted to someone saying “die you c**t”; he says this was a “contemptuous” reply

Mr Campbell again insists that the “rudeness” in his tweet was in saying Oliver Mundell is a terrible public speaker and wishing he had never been born. He repeats that in his opinion, someone would have to be “dishonest or stupid” to think it was homophobic.

Court now pondering whether Mr Campbell’s tweet was “vile”, as newspapers called it; “is describing someone as a bad public speaker really ‘vile’?” he asks. Ms Dugdale’s QC contends that “dragging his father’s sexuality into” the case was the “vile” thing

Kezia Dugdale’s QC asking whether Mr Campbell thinks Nicola Sturgeon was being “dishonest or stupid” in her response to the tweet; he says no. Was Patrick Harvie? “I don’t know which.” SC says NS “did not intend” or did not say what QC is implying she said

Court examining Nicola Sturgeon’s response to Ms Dugdale at FMQs; QC says FM “appears to have agreed” that the tweet was homophobic. Mr Campbell says he thinks she was trying not to be drawn on the tweet itself, but was trying to speak generally

Mr Campbell says the first minister didn’t make any “specific reference” to his tweet. But Kezia Dugdale’s QC says “there can’t be any doubt” - he says the FM was expressing a valid view that the tweet was homophobic. SC says if she really believed that, then she was being stupid

Under questioning from Kezia Dugdale’s QC, Mr Campbell accepts that people are “entitled to hold wrong beliefs, honestly”.

Kezia Dugdale’s QC (Mr Dunlop) says that while Mr Campbell doesn’t consider something to be homophobic, other people are entitled to the view that it is. SC it’s “very sad that David Mundell felt he had to conceal his sexuality; he was saying he wished that hadn’t happened

On question of interpretation, Mr Campbell says if he said “good morning” and Mr Dunlop somehow thought he said “your hair is on fire”, he would not be to blame for him pouring a bucket of water over his head.

The four most magical words in the court reporter’s repertoire; “court breaks for lunch”

One fudge doughnut later, we’re back underway at Edinburgh Sheriff court. Kezia Dugdale’s QC Roddy Dunlop resuming questioning of Stuart Campbell.

Mr Dunlop puts it to Mr Campbell that one person could consider something to be banter, while someone else might be offended by it. Mr Campbell says “offence is subjective”. He rejects the assertion that he “weaponised” David Mundell’s sexuality.

Mr Campbell says not all members of the LGBT community found his tweet about Oliver Mundell homophobic; he says he got numerous messages from gay people who said they didn’t think it was. Mr Dunlop asks if those who did are stupid, dishonest or “out to get you”? SC says yes

Mr Dunlop reading previous tweets from Mr Campbell, including one making reference to “any sanctimonious wankhole” - “what is a wankhole?” Mr Campbell says it would be “a hole into which one might wank”

Mr Dunlop recalls Mr Campbell saying he was “horrified” to see the article he is suing Ms Dugdale over. He says this was the latest in a series of articles about it - why sue over this one, and not others? Mr Campbell says “I can’t sue everyone in the world at once”

Mr Campbell says other stories put the word homophobic in quote marks, so reporting the claim rather than saying it themselves. Mr Dunlop says it’s “an opinion that many people have”; Mr Campbell says we have so far identified “seven or eight out of a country or five million”

Mr Dunlop reads our previous tweets from Mr Campbell saying David Mundell “looks like a tramp” and a “sack of turds”; aren’t these abusive, he asks? Mr Campbell says he can’t remember the detail or context from the time, he’s sent up to 400,000 tweets over the years

Mr Dunlop reads more Wings tweets calling Ruth Davidson a “dribblewit” and a “mouth-breathing dolt”; doesn’t Mr Campbell agree these are abusive tweets? “They’re rude”, Mr Campbell says - they were “provoked”.

Mr Dunlop reads another Wings tweet about his Bath MP, saying “die you c**t”. Isn’t this “abusive”? Mr Campbell says the tweet is “extremely angry”. He says the tweet is a “justified response in context” - he disagrees with Mr Dunlop that this is abusive.

Sheriff Ross intervenes to ask what distinction Mr Campbell is drawing between being rude and being abusive; he says abuse would be attacking people “without provocation”. “So one is discerning and the other isn’t?” the sheriff asks? “Yes”

Mr Dunlop running through a series of other Wings tweets, highlighting what he says is personal criticism of David Mundell; Mr Campbell says it was “not his gayness” that he was criticising.

Just in case things weren’t contentious enough, the court is now getting into whether Mr Campbell thinks Chelsea Manning is a woman or not. Mr Dunlop says if Mr Campbell is entitled to the view that Chelsea Manning is a man, aren’t others entitled to the view that CM is a woman?

Mr Campbell says “if I proclaim I’m Napoleon, am I? If I proclaim I’m black, am I?” He says people “should be allowed to live their lives however they want”, but he objects to “people ordering me” to say something he doesn’t believe is true - that Chelsea Manning is a woman.

Mr Dunlop and Mr Campbell are having quite a lengthy exchange about the difference between “transgender” and “transsexual” and the use of various pronouns; Sheriff Ross asks if this line of questioning is really worth pursuing

Back to the video game comment about “girls and homosexuals”, which was mentioned earlier; Mr Dunlop says this was “demeaning and offensive”. Mr Campbell says he was writing “ironically and satirically”, and would have been understood to be by any reader of that site at the time

Mr Campbell rejects that he is a transphobe; he says he thinks Chelsea Manning is a “hero” and “fabulous”. But he says it’s “delusional” of CM to claim to be a woman. Mr Dunlop asks if that is intolerant; “no, I don’t believe the statement of biological fact is intolerance”

Mr Campbell also says it’s “absolutely untrue” that he was homophobic in his Mundell tweet. If he had “avoided” the “most obvious route” by which Oliver Mundell could have been not born, *that* would have been him treating David Mundell differently on account of his sexuality.

Mr Dunlop wraps up by suggesting to Mr Campbell that “politeness is not your forte”; “I am perfectly capable of being polite” he says. “If people address me aggressively and rudely, I will be aggressive and rude back.”

Next witness in the Wings-Dugdale case is Paul Kavanagh, the author of the Wee Ginger Dug blog.

Mr Kavanagh says people on the unionist side see Mr Campbell as “Satan”. He says the traditional media and unionist politicians have a “pronounced tendency” to demonise independence supporters like Mr Campbell

Mr Kavanagh says he quit Twitter around time of Mr Campbell’s tweet about Oliver Mundell, but he was aware of it. He tells the court he came out as gay in the 80s; he personally didn’t think the tweet was homophobic, and hadn’t seen anything on Wings that he considered homophobic

Mr Kavanagh says Scotland was “intensely homophobic” when he came out in the 80s, so he is well attuned to picking up on this; he had “never” had the impression from Mr Campbell that he regarded his relationship with his partner as anything less than a heterosexual relationship

Mr Kavanagh says for a blogger, being called a homophobe is like being called a racist or a holocaust denier; it “destroys your credibility” and makes it hard for you to “reach no voters or people who are undecided”. “It has a very damaging effect.”

Mr Dunlop asks Mr Kavanagh about Nicola Sturgeon’s FMQs comment about the tweet; he says as a straight woman she might not be the best judge of what is or isn’t homophobic. He stresses again that he doesn’t think the tweet was homophobic.

Mr Dunlop says different people are entitled to different views; Mr Kavanagh says they are, but people who have experienced homophobia are “far more sensitive” to the issue because of lived experience.

Asked about David Mundell’s view on Mr Campbell’s tweet, Mr Kavanagh says DM “spent his entire life hiding from homophobia” and wasn’t “at the sharp end” like he was - DM didn’t come out until 2016 when it was relatively “safe” to do so (compared to the 80s)

Next witness in the Wings-Dugdale case is Colin McFarlane, director of Stonewall Scotland.

Mr Macfarlane (apologies for spelling in previous tweet) says he wasn’t previously (before the March 2017 Mundell tweet) aware that Wings Over Scotland had any views on gay rights. Court now examining Stonewall’s definition of homophobia.

Mr Sandison - QC for Mr Campbell - is so far mostly asking Mr Macfarlane about gender self-identification, which has become a rather large subplot in this case. There is a “diversity of viewpoints” on the matter, they agree

Mr Dunlop next up with Mr Macfarlane; CF agrees that it is his job to “call out homophobia and transphobia” where he sees it. He says he was “disappointed” by Mr Campbell’s March 2017 tweet; “I thought it was wholly unnecessary to reference David Mundell’s sexuality”

Mr Macfarlane says he felt Mr Mundell’s sexuality had been the “punchline” of Mr Campbell’s tweet; he thinks a lot of people agreed that it was unnecessary. Asked if he is stupid or dishonest (per SC’s defence of tweet), “I understand homophobia when I see it and when I hear it.”

Both QCs are out of questions, but Sheriff Ross has a few more for Mr Macfarlane; CF says Mr Campbell’s tweet was unnecessarily drawing attention to Mr Mundell’s sexuality while talking about his son, and used his sexual orientation as a punchline

That’s us for today - Mr Dunlop says he plans to call Kezia Dugdale to give evidence tomorrow. He had planned to call David Mundell, but the Scottish Secretary is unable to attend

...and we’re back for day two of @WingsScotland vs @kezdugdale at Edinburgh Sheriff Court. First (and, I think, only) witness of the day: Kezia Dugdale.

Kezia Dugdale being questioned by her QC, Roddy Dunlop, about the Daily Record column she is being sued over. She tells the court she felt Mr Campbell’s tweet about Oliver Mundell was “worthy” of being written about.

Ms Dugdale says the tweet had been reported “all over the printed media” before her article was published; there was “quite a hostile reaction” to it; she says “lots of people considered the tweet to be homophobic and offensive”. Text of article is included below:

Kezia Dugdale tells the court that “a healthy democracy” should have a range of views, but discrimination should not be part of public discourse. She says the tweet “considered gay people to be lesser because they can’t have children”; that element “didn’t need to be there”.

Kezia Dugdale says when she was first elected to Holyrood, an SNP politician gave her a business card with a link to Wings Over Scotland on the back of it; she says lots of other SNP politicians actively share Mr Campbell’s work “as an authority”.

Kezia Dugdale says politicians should set the tone for political debate; they have a responsibility not to use abusive language and to call it out. She says “as a gay politician” she felt she had a responsibility to call out homophobia.

Ms Dugdale tells the court that Mr Campbell’s tweet was homophobic “because it considers gay people to be lesser” beause they can’t have children, something that is “factually incorrect”; also says including reference to Mr Mundell’s sexuality was to “other” it

Kezia Dugdale says she is entitled to her own view of what she considers homophobia to be; as a gay woman she has encountered it in a number of forms. It remains her “honest” view that Mr Campbell’s tweet was homophobic. Mr Dunlop’s questioning ends.

Craig Sandison QC, for Stuart Campbell, now questioning Kezia Dugdale. She says she reads the Wings Over Scotland website “from time to time” but has the twitter feed blocked. She confirms that she was aware that the website had made “uniformly disparaging” references to her

Mr Sandison taking Kezia Dugdale through a series of Wings tweets about her and other politicians, as cited in newspaper stories. “I honestly couldn’t remember every time someone said something negative about me on the internet,” she says.

Kezia Dugdale says the Wings twitter feed is “caustic, critical...aggressive and abusive”. This was her view prior to March 2017 and remains so. She says she faces “a lot of abuse and criticism” about politics on “a daily basis”, but more personal abuse can get under her skin

Kezia Dugdale says she blocks Wings on twitter because she wants to be in control of what she sees when she picks up her phone; so she can look things up when she wants. “It’s better for your mental health to be in control of what you digest on the internet” she says.

Mr Sandison now taking Ms Dugdale through a Wings blog post titled “Kezia Dugdale is a liar”. She says she doesn’t remember having a strong reaction to it; it’s in keeping with the tone of the blog. She says it has more of an impact when she respects the person saying something

Court examining another Wings blog about Kezia Dugdale, titled “a difficulty with facts”. While she conceded she was “probably” wrong in what the first article was about, she says this one is “factually inaccurate”. She accepts that Mr Campbell was calling her a “habitual liar”

Mr Sandison asks if Mr Campbell’s blog “stung” Ms Dugdale; she says no, it’s just untrue. On to another blog, which (once again) is mostly about a video clip which the court is looking at in video form, so can’t watch.

Mr Sandison reading out a series of Wings blog posts to Ms Dugdale and asking how she felt about them; asked if she thought Mr Campbell’s “fact check” articles are calling her a liar, she says he had a “different interpretation” to her

Mr Sandison presses Ms Dugdale again that Mr Campbell was calling her a liar in his “Kezia Dugdale Fact Check” blogs; she says the blogs are “factually inaccurate”, but was aware that Mr Campbell was calling her a liar. “From time to time” this crossed into personal abuse.

Mr Sandison says it’s highly likely that someone who is being called a liar and abused would develop a negative attitude towards the person saying these things. Ms Dugdale says “it’s different when you’re in politics”, but agrees - adding that Mr Campbell was “not unique”

Ms Dugdale says she received a lot of criticism from people online, but Mr Campbell was probably in the “top ten”. Mr Sandison pressing her to say she formed a negative attitude towards him due to his posts.

Mr Sandison now taking Ms Dugdale through a Wings post where he listed “about 120” past tweets where he showed “positive” support for gay rights. QC asks if she was aware of them before she wrote her article; she says she had “probably seen some of them”

Kezia Dugdale says she has “never” said Stuart Campbell is “a homophobe”, but that his tweet was homophobic. Does she consider him a homophobe, today? “No, I believe what he said in his tweets to be homophobic.” “But not him?” “I’ve never called him a homophobe.”

Kezia Dugdale says she has never met Stuart Campbell, so she wouldn’t call him “a homophobe”; she says “this whole case” is about his *tweet*, which she says was homophobic.

Mr Sandison now moving on to Mr Campbell’s tweet about Oliver Mundell. Kezia Dugdale says she didn’t see it directly because she had him blocked, but she saw others discussing it and saw press coverage of it. She agrees that her column was her “first public response” to it.

Mr Sandison asks about Ms Dugdale’s reference to “homophobic tweets” (plural) - what other tweets were homophobic? “I don’t remember,” she says, but she thinks it relates to the “discourse” following the original tweet. She doesn’t recall specifically.

Mr Sandison says nobody else referenced any other tweet as being homophobic, just the one about Oliver Mundell.

On to who was being “abused” in the tweet - Kezia Dugdale says “the Mundell family was being abused”; Oliver for his speaking ability, David for his sexuality

Mr Sandison now taking Ms Dugdale through Mr Campbell’s defence of his tweet. Does she accept that homophobia is a “fear or dislike” of someone based on their views? “I accept that as a dictionary definiton,” she says, but there are many forms of homophobia, some quite subtle

Kezia Dugdale says “people are entitled to their view of what is homophobic”, and that as a gay woman she has the right to a view. Mr Sandison asks if this extends beyond dictionary definitions, reading out the Stonewall definition. KD says the Stonewall definition backs her up.

Mr Sandison asking “who is being ‘feared or disliked’” in Mr Campbell’s tweet. She says it shows a “negative attitude”, also quoting from Stonewall. CS asks if Oliver Mundell is “the butt of the joke”; she says no, it’s about David Mundell’s sexuality.

Mr Sandison examining a tweet where someone wished Katie Hopkins’ father had “a time machine and a condom”, saying this is the same joke; Ms Dugdale says it is not, because it includes “no reference to sexuality”. Same for the George Takei tweet discussed yesterday.

Kezia Dugdale tells the court that she doesn’t know who George Takei is and she doesn’t know what Donald Trump’s father Fred’s sexuality is

Mr Sandison now taking Kezia Dugdale through the FMQs session where she raised this case with the first minister; she says she met Brendan Cox to discuss the tone of political debate that week, and wanted to highlight the “damage” of Wings words and actions to political debate

Mr Sandison asks Kezia Dugdale if Wings Over Scotland had been “a thorn in the side” of Scottish Labour; “not really, no”, she says. She says Wings is a “fanzine” for people of a certain political view. She denies being “furious” about the site, as was claimed in one post.

Mr Sandison asks Kezia Dugdale if you can identify a homophobe by things they say and do; “I feel like you’re asking me to defame Mr Campbell by calling him a homophobe,” she replies.

Mr Sandison suggests that by saying someone has said something homophobic without offering any context of them having previously stated contrary views is “tantamount to saying that person is a homophobe”; Ms Dugdale says she doesn’t quite agree, “that could be quite a leap”

Mr Sandison reads a Jordan Daly blog post about Mr Campbell which says Ms Dugdale “marked him as homophobic”. She says that would be Mr Daly’s view; she adds that he is an LGBT rights activist so takes a more active role in looking at and calling out such things

Mr Sandison says Ms Dugdale’s target in her column was “the man (Mr Campbell), not the tweet”. She disagrees. QC quotes article saying he “spouts hatred & homophobia”; “it’s not the tweet, it’s him”. KD says SNP politicians shouldn’t retweet someone who uses the language SC does.

Mr Sandison now going through Holyrood session where Ms Dugdale called on Nicola Sturgeon to “condemn” Mr Campbell - not his tweet, he says. “For all of the bile,” she replies; “he poisons the political debate.” She says her question to the FM was about calling out homophobia.

Mr Sandison highlights Ms Dugdale’s call for SNP politicians to “denounce and shun” Wings Over Scotland. She says SNP politicians shouldn’t encourage people to read Wings because of the tone Mr Campbell brings to the debate.

Mr Sandison asks Kezia Dugdale if she ever asked Mr Campbell to apologise for his tweet; she says no, adding that she has never met him. “Equally he’s never asked for me to retract it (the article), he just asked for money.”

Mr Sandison now looking through Ms Dugdale’s previous defence notes (she says she used to have a different, bigger legal team), saying there have been “changes” in her position. Sheriff Ross interjects to say these notes were drafted by lawyers, suggesting Mr Sandison moves on

Court now focusing on a comment Mr Campbell posted on EuroGamer; Kezia Dugdale had “seen it referenced on twitter” rather than on that site. Mr Sandison asks if she went to see context; she says the comment “was very clearly homophobic” without context, didn’t need “deeper dive”

Court back on to Mr Campbell’s views on Chelsea Manning, which Ms Dugdale says are discussed in a “twitter bubble”. Mr Sandison says at worst these views could be transphobic; KD accepts this has a different definition to homophobia, but says it is within sphere of LGBT rights

Mr Sandison says transphobia and homophobia are entirely different; “there is no overlap”. Kezia Dugdale says being trans has nothing to do with your sexuality, but says there is a connection in the history of the LGBT rights movement. “You don’t exclude the T.”

Sheriff Ross asking Kezia Dugdale a few questions now. Is any joke about a gay person homophobic? She says if the butt of a joke is rooted in someone’s sexuality, then there is every possibility that it’s homophobic.

Kezia Dugdale’s evidence is complete. Court now looking at a letter from David Mundell’s lawyers, citing parliamentary privilege not to appear “due to Brexit”. This is accepted.

Court is done for the day - that’s all the witnesses we’ll be hearing from, although there will be some further legal submissions tomorrow morning.

Day three of @wingsscotland v @kezdugdale at Edinburgh Sheriff Court. No witnesses today, we’re into closing legal submissions from both sides. Craig Sandison QC, for Stuart Campbell, up first.

Mr Sandison says this is a straightforward case - he says Kezia Dugdale wrote a defamatory article calling Mr Campbell a homophobe, and “anything else is smoke and mirrors”.

Today is going to involve a lot of references back to case law and precedent (so less emphasis on swearing and celebrity references, sorry twitter) - Mr Sandison currently going back through definitions of defamation

Mr Sandison says to accuse a person of homophobia would lower that person’s reputation in the eyes of society. “It is practically a given” that calling someone a homophobe is “a stain on that person’s character”.

Case turns on whether Kezia Dugdale was calling Mr Campbell a homophobe when she wrote about “homophobic tweets” (plural) and him “spouting” homophobia. Mr Sandison is arguing that this is a “reasonable, natural or necessary” interpretation of her language

Mr Sandison says that “absent any context being given to the statement” about “homophobic tweets” (so clarification that these tweets were not an “aberration” for the writer) it “reasonably and naturally” leads to conclusion that Kezia Dugdale was calling Mr Campbell a homophobe

Mr Sandison says his “job is done”; he says he’s established that something defamatory was communicated about Mr Campbell by Ms Dugdale. But he’s going to go through and address her defences too.

Mr Sandison examining Kezia Dugdale’s defence of “fair comment” (again via case law and precedent) - the “traditional” three-part test is that this comment must be a true, in the public interest, and fair. He says this is the test which should be used, not one of “honest comment”

Mr Sandison says Court must rule on what law in Scotland is (so current fair comment test), not what it might develop to be or what it is in England (the “honest comment” test). Kezia Dugdale might “honestly believe” tweet was homophobic; QC says that isn’t a fair comment defence

Mr Sandison says fair comment defence “doesn’t get off the ground” as article proposes *facts* not comments. Sheriff Ross asks if we’re heading into “murky middle ground” between the two; QC says dividing line can be hard to draw, but “homophobic” has “ordinary & natural meaning”

Mr Sandison says Kezia Dugdale’s line that she was “shocked and appalled” because of “homophobic tweets” is her stating a fact, “not commenting”. “She’s saying as a fact that someone made homophobic tweets.”

Sheriff Ross asking about some language used in the article; saying something is a “tirade” could seem more a “judgement” than a statement of fact. It has “an element of imputation”. Mr Sandison says Ms Dugdale is saying *something* has happened; the *fact* of this twitter tirade

Mr Sandison going through Kezia Dugdale’s article (below, from previous court judgement) line by line, highlighting parts he says are statements being put forward as “a matter of fact”, not as comments.

Mr Sandison says the fair comment defence has fallen at the first hurdle. But on to the next hurdle anyway; whether or not the comment is true. He says Mr Campbell “did not make homophobic tweets” (plural) - he made “a single tweet” which anyone has said was homophobic.

Mr Sandison says “it’s not true” that anyone faced abuse because of their sexuality in this tweet. If anyone was abused, it was Oliver Mundell, in account of his public speaking. DM was “absolutely not” abused; tweet never says he acted wrongly by not coming out sooner

“I prefer to call it a jibe rather than a joke, because I don’t find it particularly funny,” notes Mr Sandison, as an aside. It’s possible that explaining a joke in court for three days will tend to have that effect...

Mr Sandison says it’s a “biological” fact that gay relationships don’t produce children. The tweet does say these relationships are “different”, but it’s not in any way saying they’re lesser. QC says it’s no different to pointing out people have different hair colour.

On the final test of the fair comment defence, Mr Sandison says Kezia Dugdale’s article was not “fair”. It was “at least in part motivated by the ill feeling” she held towards Mr Campbell. He says article is not a “general comment about the state of political discourse”.

Mr Sandison argues that Kezia Dugdale directed her article at Stuart Campbell because he had been “tormenting” her, writing a well-read blog calling her a “habitual liar”. He accepts that Mr Campbell might be an “equal opportunities abuser” but Ms Dugdale was a “principal target”

Sheriff Ross asks if there’s a statutory definition of homophobia; Mr Sandison doesn’t think there is, but says there are plenty of dictionary definitions. He says the question of what homophobia is “can be posed on an objective basis”

Mr Sandison says Mr Campbell’s jibe at Oliver Mundell has been used in various other forms - like those cited about Katie Hopkins and Donald Trump - regardless of sexuality. He says no witness could say that Mr Campbell’s tweet showed “hate, fear or dislike” of gay people.

Mr Sandison says the defence seem to give homophobia a definition “far removed from its ordinary and natural meaning”; it would have to include anything about a gay person which they or another homosexual did not want to hear.

Mr Sandison says Kezia Dugdale might not have liked Mr Campbell’s tweet, she might “honestly believe” it to be homophobic, but that doesn’t make it so. He says the jibe was “not funny at all” but it does not abuse anyone on the basis of their sexuality and “is not homophobic”.

Mr Sandison says Kezia Dugdale is trying to argue - like Humpty Dumpty - that words should mean just what she chooses them to mean. He says she can’t control how her article was interpreted by the ordinary reader.

Mr Sandison dismisses the “Chelsea Manning sub-plot” to the case; he says Mr Campbell’s views about CM are “neither here nor there” because there is “no crossover whatsoever” between transphobia & homophobia. Even if he was a transphobe, it wouldn’t make him a homophobe.

Mr Sandison says Stuart Campbell continues to be “deeply distressed” by the allegation that he is a homophobe, “because he plainly is not”.

On whether Stuart Campbell has a reputation to defend, Mr Sandison says on his own evidence “he is not a polite man, he does not restrain himself” - but he has a “distinct reputation”, which is deserved, as an advocate of gay rights. This is what he is here to defend.

Mr Sandison says Mr Campbell is to all intents and purposes a public figure; he’s “a new kind of public figure” for the digital age. So he has a reputation to defend, and £25,000 would be a “very reasonable amount” to award.

Roddy Dunlop QC now making closing arguments for Kezia Dugdale. He says much of the evidence led in this case has been inadmissible; arguments about “what words mean” are for the judge, not for witnesses. Same goes for whether something is fact or comment.

Back to the case law, and Mr Dunlop has another definition of defamation. He says the court should “avoid an overly analytical” approach; “read the article once - what impression does it leave on the reasonable reader?”

Mr Dunlop says Paul Kavanagh’s attempt to cast himself as the “ultimate aribter of what is homophobic should be rejected”. Sheriff Ross asks if the same goes for Colin Macfarlane from Stonewall? It’s not for them to decide in this case, says Mr Dunlop.

Mr Dunlop says Stuart Campbell “quite clearly does not like” Kezia Dugdale; he has been “extremely rude” about her. And “on the one occasion she calls him out”, he sues her - her, not the Daily Record, or David Mundell. Says court should view his evidence “with some care”.

Mr Dunlop says this case isn’t really about whether Stuart Campbell’s tweet was homophobic, but whether Kezia Dugdale was “entitled to view it as such”. This is a “value judgement, on which reaonable minds may reasonably differ”.

Mr Dunlop says by his own submission Mr Campbell is a “public figure” - one who is “openly and caustically critical of anyone who opposes his point of view”. QC says this means “he needs a thick skin”.

Mr Dunlop drawing on case law (including the first Tommy Sheridan case) about criticism of public figures; broad thrust is about being free to discuss public figures in their “public capacity” (if not their “private conduct”) and that they should have “a high degree of tolerance”

Mr Dunlop says there is an irony in Stuart Campbell, “a master of calumny”, suing someone for defamation. He says SC entered the political arena of his own volition to fire “poison arrows” - he shouldn’t complain when one is fired back

Sheriff Ross asking if accusations of someone being a homophobe transgress the limits of fair criticism; Mr Dunlop says we’re “a world away from that” - he says Ms Dugdale was writing about “twitter activity” conducted in public, about public figures

Court now examining whether someone can say homophobic things without being “a homophobe”. Mr Dunlop argues that someone could talk about “going for a chinky” without actually having a racist bone in their body, even though everyone would agree they shouldn’t say that.

Sheriff Ross says if we don’t have a “commonly understood standard” of homophobia, he’s concerned that we’re setting a “legal trap” that nobody knows the edges of. Mr Dunlop says the court equally can’t say its ok for someone to be mocked due to their sexuality.

Mr Dunlop says Kezia Dugdale’s description of Mr Campbell’s tweet as homophobic falls foursquare into realm of “criticism, remark or observation” (so comment, not a statement of fact) - it was a “value judgement”.

“It’s a good quote, that.”
“It is.”
“I’m not sure I understand it.”

Some high-level courtroom bantz going down here.

On the matter of Kezia Dugdale’s article talking about “homophobic tweets” - so plural rather than singular - her QC Mr Dunlop says it “would be surprising” if a single letter destroyed a defence that otherwise would have succeeded

Mr Dunlop says David Mundell was “collateral damage in a joke designed to mock Oliver Mundell”. “It was Mundell Senior who was the butt of the joke - it was his sexuality that was used to make the joke”. He says the only way the joke works is to focus on DM’s sexuality.

On the matter of whether Ms Dugdale should have set out the detail of the tweet itself in her column - so the facts being commented on - Mr Dunlop says it was “all over the public domain” and had been carried by “pretty much every newspaper” by the time Ms Dugdale wrote.

Mr Dunlop says he’s entitled to leave bad TripAdvisor reviews without specifying exactly what was wrong with his cocktail or the play he went to, as long as there is reasonable reference to what he’s talking about. Otherwise all comment would be tied up in legal duties.

Mr Dunlop says Ms Dugdale’s article was “plainly comment”, and had sufficient reference to the tweet (which anyone could find “in a nanosecond”), so now moving on to the final part of the fair comment test - fairness. He says this is also “plainly met”.

Mr Dunlop asks if it is really the case that no honest person could believe this tweet homophobic? He says Colin Macfarlane, Patrick Harvie, Nicola Sturgeon, David Mundell and Kezia Dugdale all did. Even Mr Campbell says someone could (given he said they’d be dishonest OR stupid)

Sheriff Ross says we’ve come back to question of “what does homophobia mean”. Mr Dunlop says man in the street would understand it as “negative attitudes or prejudice towards gay people”; says Harvie, Sturgeon etc didn’t go look in a dictionary, they just came to an honest view

“The bell is tolling, my lord,” says Mr Dunlop as the clock chimes outside. Court breaks for lunch.

We’re back at Edinburgh Sheriff Court, for what should be the final arguments. Mr Dunlop - QC for Kezia Dugdale - continuing to sum up his defence arguments

Mr Dunlop says he is not arguing for ”a law of unrestrained ability to comment”; restraint would come from ‘fair comment’ defence requirements of relevancy and honest. “Even if it’s wrong and even if it’s stupid - that’s what freedom of expression requires.”

Mr Dunlop says the court doesn’t have to be the arbiter of good taste; it just has to decide if Ms Dugdale’s comment was relevant, and an honestly held view. If nobody is honestly entitled to view this tweet as homophobic, “freedom of expression means nothing”

Mr Dunlop says ruling against Kezia Dugdale in this case would be “dangerous”, as it would “limit the ability of people” like her to “criticise homophobia when she sees it”. “As she understands it?” clarifies Sheriff Ross; “Yes.”

Mr Dunlop we are “simply nowhere near malice on the part of Ms Dugdale”; she honestly believed and continues to believe in what she wrote. He says she was “entirely within her rights to hold and express that view”.

Mr Dunlop now on to the defence of “qualified privilege”, which requires the issue to be “a matter of public interest”. QC says this is underlined by the “media storm” and “public backlash” to Mr Campbell’s tweet, and the various public figures commenting on it.

Mr Dunlop says Kezia Dugdale considers it her duty as an elected politician (and party leader) and a gay woman to “shine a light” on homophobic behaviour. So the public have an interest in hearing her views on the matter; she has a public interest defence.

(incidentally Mr Dunlop doesn’t want to have to use this latest defence, as it’s chiefly for statements of fact, and he insists her column is *comment*. Fair comment, indeed. But if he loses on that point, he wants to have this defence in place)

Mr Dunlop now on to a “veritas” defence, that the statement is substantially true. Again this is a backup defence in case he loses on an earlier point - this one would apply if court rules Kezia Dugdale called Stuart Campbell a homophobe, which she insists she didn’t.

To advance idea that Mr Campbell is a homophobe, Mr Dunlop examines his comment about a video game level being for “girls and homosexuals” and a later tweet about George Michael (bundling him together with Kezia Dugdale and Ruth Davidson - but not the heterosexual Willie Rennie)

Mr Dunlop now looking at “the Chelsea Manning chapter” of the case; says Mr Campbell’s position is “transphobia writ large”. QC says both transphobia and homophobia involve prejudice towards the LGBT community

Mr Dunlop says claim that there is no link between transphobia and homophobia is like saying “I hate Asians but I’m fine with black people”. Sheriff Ross questions if the two things fall into the same category; Mr Dunlop says it’s all prejudice towards the LGBT community.

Mr Dunlop says it is not Ms Dugdale’s position to say Mr Campbell is a homophobe; but he is entitled to put forward this argument as a fallback position, should his other arguments fall.

After Sheriff Ross points out the article of 120 tweets and retweets where Mr Campbell backed the gay community and equal marriage, Mr Dunlop says his support for equal marriage “is to his credit”, but does not preclude him acting in a homophobic way

Final fallback defence; what is there to say this article damaged Mr Campbell’s reputation more than any of the other articles about his tweet? Mr Dunlop says given his reputation was already for “bile and vitriol”, the article could not have damaged Mr Campbell

Mr Dunlop says if Mr Campbell has shown himself to be transphobic, “no substantial award would be appropriate” for calling him a homophobe. Sheriff Ross asks if SC can’t choose to be rude to some people but not others.

Mr Dunlop says if someone is claimed to be a “thief and a paedophile”, and only the latter was true, they wouldn’t be able to sue for defamation about the “thief” part because their reputation would already be so low.

Mr Dunlop has completed his defence submission; Mr Sandison is rebutting a few points of law, but we’re into injury time here at Edinburgh Sheriff Court

Mr Sandison raises points about whether the judge should be allowed to look at a dictionary or not, and what the readers of Caravanners Weekly and Fly Fishing Monthly might have made of Ms Dugdale’s column

Mr Sandison rebutting whether Mr Campbell should have a “thick skin” as a public figure; QC says SC does not hold public office or purport to represent anyone, and is “entitled to the same degree of protection as anyone else” for his “private views” (albeit expressed publicly)

Mr Sandison, rebutting the fair comment defence, says he is not arguing for the “dystopian world” painted by Mr Dunlop where the fair comment defence doesn’t exist; simply that this article doesn’t meet the tests of it.

Responding to Mr Dunlop’s assertion that the court should not over-analyse Ms Dugdale’s column, but should read it once in the way an ordinary person would, Mr Sandison says “I’d rather be guilty of overanalysis than no analysis at all”

Mr Sandison throws some shade on defamation law south of the border; “English law has tied itself in knots, and one sometimes gets the impression that they like it that way.”

Attacking another of Ms Dugdale’s defences, Mr Sandison says theres no qualified privilege because she wasn’t telling people anything new; “it was all out there already”. Readers would have known about the tweet unless they had “been on a day trip to Mars” or “come out of a coma”

Finally, Mr Sandison seeking to knock down the veritas defence. After Mr Dunlop asked why Willie Rennie wasn’t mentioned in the George Michael tweet, Mr Sandison asks if this is more likely to be “because he’s inconsequential” than because he’s not gay

On the matter of damages, Mr Sandison says David Mundell “only obliquely” called the tweet homophobic, and nobody else in the mainstream media did; just Ms Dugdale. QC says Mr Campbell has a “clear reputation” as a champion of equal rights.

And that’s that - Sheriff Ross sends the case to “avizandum” (meaning he’s going to go away and think about it) - he says he’d normally try to be back within four weeks, and will “do my best”