Keir Starmer Settles Dossier Case

Labour’s Costly Legacy: Party Settles Dossier Claims for £2 Million

The Labour Party has resolved legal disputes with twenty individuals, a group composed mainly of one-time staffers, who appeared in a contentious leaked paper about antisemitism. This settlement comes with an estimated price tag of nearly £2 million, representing another costly episode in a saga that has troubled the party for years. The agreements cover accusations of defamation and the misuse of private information, all originating from the contents of the unsubmitted 800-page document.

This amount adds to a growing legal bill associated with the affair, which now surpasses £4 million. Previously, the party had racked up £2.4 million in expenses for a lawsuit against five ex-staffers it claimed were behind the document’s release, a legal action it later withdrew. The latest settlements, which were finalised before the last general election but have only been publicised now, highlight the persistent financial and reputational fallout from a time of fierce internal discord.

A spokesperson indicated that the organisation is pleased to see this matter resolved, suggesting a wish to move on. Nevertheless, the large payouts underscore the gravity of the complaints and the destructive fallout from the dossier's unauthorised release.

The Accusation of Sabotage

A key feature of the settlement includes a payment to Patrick Heneghan, who once served as Labour’s director of elections. The inflammatory leaked file contained the baseless and harmful claim that he deliberately worked to undermine Jeremy Corbyn’s 2017 bid for government. Mr. Heneghan had previously described this assertion as a "stab-in-the-back" style of invented story.

A formal declaration made in court on the claimants’ behalf verified this was one of several incorrect claims made about Heneghan in the document. The accusation fuelled a story of internal disloyalty that resonated during a time of intense factional schisms inside the organisation. The agreement with Heneghan signifies a public withdrawal of this grave and baseless charge.

The monetary payment, though substantial, offers only partial remedy for the damage to the reputations of people who were caught in the middle of a political inferno. Their appearance in the document resulted in public condemnation and severe scrutiny founded on false information.

A Dossier Born from Conflict

The extensive 800-page paper at the centre of the dispute was created while Jeremy Corbyn was leader. Its initial purpose was to be a component of a report for the EHRC, which had started a formal inquiry into the pervasiveness of antisemitism in the organisation. The paper, however, was not officially delivered to the rights body.

It was instead released to the public by an anonymous source, pushing its controversial material into the open. The file contained a large volume of private WhatsApp exchanges and emails from specified party employees. These messages exposed deep-seated animosity aimed at Corbyn and his supporters, illustrating a political party in profound conflict with itself.

The document’s primary argument was that this internal factional discord was a major cause of the party’s clumsy response to antisemitism allegations. It also made other assertions, including detailing instances of Islamophobia, anti-black prejudice, and a climate of gender-based harassment and intimidation, pointing to a poisonous atmosphere that extended past one single problem.

Image Credit - Al Jazeera

Reputations on the Line

The legal proceedings initiated by twenty claimants, which concluded with the latest agreement, centred on defamation and the improper exposure of their personal information. In addition to Patrick Heneghan, a number of other claimants agreed to be identified, showing the personal toll of the document’s leak.

The party’s former governance head, John Stolliday, alongside Fraser Welsh, who worked in the same department, pursued a case regarding the exposure of their private communications and what their representatives termed "false and damaging" claims that they impeded progress on antisemitism to weaken Corbyn’s position.

Another claimant who was named was Joe Goldberg, then serving as a Labour councillor for Haringey in north London. A court declaration detailed how the leaked file made completely false assertions that Goldberg held Islamophobic beliefs and sought to discredit another party member using a baseless antisemitism claim. Such charges placed people in a publicly indefensible spot, needing to protect their character from accusations presented in what looked like an official party paper.

A Breach of Confidence

Ben Santhouse’s situation revealed an especially disturbing element of the affair. Mr. Santhouse had submitted a private complaint to the party regarding an incident of antisemitism he allegedly witnessed. The released paper not only identified him but also labelled him "a vexatious complainant who made disproportionate and unfounded allegations of antisemitism against individuals".

A formal statement in court affirmed these assertions were defamatory. This particular incident showed how a system designed for member protection was seemingly twisted to target a person lodging a complaint. The claimants maintained they were not even aware their confidential communications were being collected. They further asserted that the file manipulated these messages to weave false and distorted accounts, turning private discussions into tools for factional warfare.

This practice of misrepresentation and violations of privacy was the foundation for the legal challenges. It demonstrated a breakdown of procedural integrity and trust within the party's disciplinary system during a chaotic era.

The EHRC Delivers Its Verdict

While the contentious document offered one version of events, the formal investigation from the EHRC provided a damning judgement in October 2020. The equalities authority found Labour culpable for three violations of the Equality Act (2010). These pertained to political meddling in antisemitism cases, a lack of proper training for complaint handlers, and examples of illegal harassment.

The EHRC’s probe, which looked at 70 complaint files, found 23 examples of “inappropriate involvement” from the Leader of the Opposition’s Office (LOTO). The body’s report found the party’s senior figures had not dealt with the problem well, calling the shortcomings “inexcusable” and suggesting they arose from an "unwillingness to tackle antisemitism rather than an inability to do so".

The investigation pointed to two explicit instances of illegal harassment by party representatives, which involved Ken Livingstone, a former London mayor, and councillor Pam Bromley, whose conduct included the use of antisemitic stereotypes. The EHRC required a legally binding improvement plan to correct these problems.

Starmer’s Pledge for Change

Following the publication of the EHRC’s findings, Keir Starmer, the new Labour leader, called it a "day of shame" for his organisation. He gave a complete apology to the Jewish community and vowed to adopt all of the EHRC’s suggestions without reservation. Starmer’s reaction represented a clear departure from the way the previous leadership had managed the situation.

He declared that individuals who refused to acknowledge the problem of antisemitism in Labour were themselves "part of the problem" and had no place in the organisation. This strong position was a clear rejection of the stance taken by certain figures in the party, such as his predecessor, Jeremy Corbyn, who had asserted the issue's magnitude was "dramatically overstated for political reasons".

After his reaction to the EHRC findings, Corbyn faced suspension from the party. Under Starmer’s direction, the party has focused on resolving the backlog of antisemitism cases and creating an independent complaints system, demonstrating a firm commitment to restoring confidence and transforming the party's culture.

The Forde Report: A Party at War

In reaction to the emergence of the 800-page file, Keir Starmer set up an independent review headed by Martin Forde KC. Published in July 2022, the findings from the Forde inquiry revealed a grim scene of a party engulfed by "debilitating factionalism". It outlined a conflict between two rival groups, one centred on the leader’s office and the other at party headquarters, ensnared in a feud that hamstrung the party’s operations.

Forde’s analysis showed that antisemitism was exploited as a "factional weapon" by each side. He discovered that some of Corbyn's detractors wielded the issue to assail him, whereas many of his supporters brushed off valid complaints as a smear attempt. This poisonous interplay prevented the party from properly confronting the gravity of antisemitism and its consequences.

The inquiry also determined that the party’s disciplinary framework was “not fit for purpose” and had been manipulated by the competing factions. Although it did not uncover proof of methodical interference from Corbyn’s circle, it did point to a severe absence of clarity and deep-seated animosity that hobbled the complaints system.

Debunking the Myths

The Forde inquiry directly confronted the sensational allegation from the leaked file that party employees had tried to derail the 2017 elections. Forde’s conclusion was that such a scenario was "highly unlikely". He assessed that although staff at the party's main office were dissatisfied with Corbyn's leadership, their conduct did not determine the election's result.

Furthermore, Forde characterised the leaked document as a "factional text" pursuing its own objectives. It was compiled with minimal oversight by authors who lacked experience and sought to promote a specific viewpoint. The investigation discovered that the file had selectively used messages to bolster its arguments.

The Forde inquiry, however, did not entirely reject the substance of the private communications. It observed that the offensive WhatsApp exchanges from a set of senior managers were not, on the whole, distorted or misrepresented. This finding acknowledged the reality of a harmful culture among certain high-level staff who were opposed to the party’s elected leadership.

Image Credit - BBC

Racism and Discrimination

The conclusions of the Forde inquiry extended past the matters of factional conflict and antisemitism. The investigation lent support to the dossier’s assertions regarding racism and prejudice in the party, indicating a "hierarchy of racism". Forde's probe discovered that the effort and attention directed at fighting antisemitism were not replicated when dealing with other types of racism.

The report observed that high-ranking Labour employees exhibited attitudes that were "deplorably factional and insensitive, and at times discriminatory" in their dealings with Corbyn and his base of support. The evidence provided to the inquiry, which included more than 1,100 separate submissions, indicated a workplace atmosphere where sexism and racism were pressing concerns.

Martin Forde later expressed disapproval of the party for what he saw as its inaction on his report’s conclusions about this pecking order of prejudice. His inquiry put forward 165 proposals to tackle the "toxic" environment, yet the main attention has largely stayed on the antisemitism problem.

The Unsolved Mystery of the Leak

A primary question in this whole affair is still without an answer: who was the source of the 850-page dossier’s release? The Labour Party, with Keir Starmer at the helm, pursued a legal case against five former high-level employees, charging them with responsibility for the unauthorised disclosure. Among those accused were Karie Murphy, who was Corbyn’s chief of staff, and Seumas Milne, his communications director.

All five of the accused vigorously refuted any part in the disclosure. The party allocated £2.4 million to this legal battle before finally ceasing the action in June of the previous year. This move left the question of the source’s identity unanswered and considerably increased the party's financial strain.

The Forde inquiry also looked into the details of the disclosure but could not ascertain the responsible party. The leak is a crucial, yet unresolved, element of the story, a purposeful action that set off a new crisis and resulted directly in millions of pounds in legal expenses.

The Panorama Precedent

The storm around the notorious dossier was not the first occasion Labour had to pay significant amounts connected to its management of antisemitism. In July 2020, the party gave a public apology and compensated seven ex-employees and a BBC journalist, John Ware. The agreement, which is thought to have involved a sum of around £600,000, settled defamation suits that arose from a BBC Panorama documentary.

The programme, named "Is Labour Antisemitic?", gave a platform to whistleblowers whom the party later accused of harbouring "personal and political axes to grind". Labour also made untrue statements about Ware, charging him with "deliberate and malicious misrepresentations".

Under Keir Starmer, the party completely withdrew these assertions and expressed regret for the harm caused. This earlier financial settlement acted as a forerunner to the more extensive legal disputes that followed, setting a precedent of the party apologising and paying for defamatory remarks made during the Corbyn leadership period.

Rebuilding Trust

Since taking the helm, Keir Starmer has positioned the fight against antisemitism as a core objective of his leadership. He has consistently articulated his ambition to "tear out antisemitism by its roots" and mend the party's bond with the Jewish community. This has meant applying a zero-tolerance approach, a policy that resulted in the suspension of Jeremy Corbyn and his eventual barring from standing as a Labour candidate.

The party has also aimed to show tangible results by addressing the backlog of antisemitism complaints and revamping its disciplinary framework to ensure independence. Starmer's initiatives have garnered approval from organisations such as the Jewish Labour Movement. Luciana Berger, an ex-MP who departed from the party citing a "sea of cases" of antisemitism, has since come back to spearhead a review for the party, remarking that it has "turned a significant corner".

Nonetheless, the monetary settlements act as a powerful reminder of the harm that was done. Even with new leadership and reformed procedures, the legacy of that era continues to loom over the party as a long and costly shadow. The latest £2 million settlement brings another chapter to a close, but the scars have not yet faded.