Stanovisko manželů Čechových k případu MacKenzie

My Lord,

Petr Cech is the internationally renowned goalkeeper who plays for Chelsea FC and the Czech Republic. Martina Cech is his wife.
 
On Thursday 11 May 2006, in the first of a series of columns, trailed on the front page The Sun newspaper published an article, written by Mr MacKenzie, spread over more than half a page which falsely accused the Claimants of having acted in a callous, heartless and uncaring way in failing to apologise for a serious injury sustained by Mr MacKenzie’s partner in January that year.  The article falsely accused them not only of knowing that this injury had been caused by their dog but also of knowing that their dog was dangerous and of being irresponsible dog owners. 

These allegations, each of which was without foundation, caused immense upset to both Mr and Mrs Cech. 

The truth is that Mr and Mrs Cech take their responsibilities as dog owners very seriously and their dog is sensibly handled and cared for at all times. 
On the day in question Mr MacKenzie’s partner was injured when she was pulled off her feet by the dog that she was walking close to the Cech’s home when that dog made to attack Mr and Mrs Cech’s dog, an attack which was only stopped by the intervention of a nearby landscape gardener. 

On hearing the commotion Mr Cech came out of the house and removed his dog from the scene; Mrs Cech and another neighbour stayed with Mr MacKenzie’s partner until an ambulance arrived. 

A few days later Mr and Mrs Cech visited Mr MacKenzie and his partner.  As one would expect, they asked Mr MacKenzie’s partner how she was and expressed their sympathy for her.  Although their dog had not been to blame for what had happened, Mr and Mrs Cech were anxious to avoid any future problems and to that end, they suggested that it might be sensible for an animal behavioural specialist to assess the dogs, both individually and together and make such suggestions as he thought fit.  Even though Mr and Mrs Cech offered to pay for this sensible course of action this offer was not accepted, even when repeated in the following weeks. 

The last communication from Mr MacKenzie’s partner as at that date had referred to him as a former editor of The Sun who was a “high profile figure in the media” and pointedly stated that it was in ”nobody’s interest that this becomes public”.  In these circumstances, the subsequent appearance of the article, with its gratuitously offensive tone and factual inaccuracies about the accident and its aftermath, coupled with the absence of any attempt to check the story with Mr and Mrs Cech or the witnesses to the incident itself severely aggravated the distress caused. 

When the matter was brought to the attention of the Defendants there was no acceptable response and so proceedings had to be issued.  It was only almost four months later, hours before a final extension for the service of a defence was due to expire that the Defendants made an unconditional offer of amends. 

Mr and Mrs Cech were considering whether to accept that offer, believing that the Defendants knew or had reason to believe that the article was both false and defamatory of them by virtue of Mr MacKenzie’s close connection with the events concerned, when the settlement offer was made.

The Defendants have since: printed an apology within Mr MacKenzie’s column in agreed terms; undertaken not to repeat the words complained of; paid Mr and Mrs Cech substantial damages and agreed to pay their reasonable legal costs.  Martina and Petr Cech will be donating the damages to the Oxford Radcliffe Hospital where Petr was treated in 2006 and to one or more other charities.

Mr and Mrs Cech consider that these steps (which are no more than they asked in their first letter to the Defendants), together with the making of this statement will properly vindicate their reputations. 

It only remains that I ask that the record be withdrawn.