This Fighting Fund is designed to support me through legal issues that arise as a consequence of my work as a journalist and broadcaster working to expose corruption and injustices and raising awareness to matters of public interest. Thank you.
Barclays
Account No. 00562866
Sort Code 20-25-25
Well, what interesting times we live in.
I, for one, am glad to be here and I say that as someone who has spent the last four years in litigation with an ex-Member of Parliament, John Hemming and his friend and legal assistant, Samuel Collingwood Smith.
On Friday we received judgment in the latest round of High Court hearings from 11 July 2024.
This was an application from John Hemming who sought to determine ‘meaning’ on the two occasions the Court has allowed him to sue me for defamation. (He attempted other occasions, too, including regarding other people’s tweets that did not mention him and I always maintained were not about him. Regardless, those claims were stopped on time limitation).
One of Mr. Hemming’s claims against me was about an interview in 2019 with You Tuber Shaun Attwood and the other was a post on this Fighting Fund page.
‘Meaning’ in defamation cases is identified by three levels as set out in the judgment at Paragraph 16. (Judgment below).
Determining ‘meaning’ before a defamation trial takes place can help both parties as it can help to narrow the issues and arguments.
This is what Judge Susie Alegre told me - the legal amateur - and I must conclude she was right.
I have now seen my civil ‘case’ in a way I haven’t before and, frankly, I welcome it.
It has been the steepest of learning curves as I have been forced to defend myself.
I have written about my allegations of oppression in this case - talked about in open court and in a High Court judgment - and the amount of money I have had to raise and spend on legal representation. I have been forced to defend myself since May 2023. The judgment briefly refers to this on the issue of 'costs'.
I was terrified the first time I stood in the High Court and addressed the judge on my own behalf in October 2023.
I know my voice wobbled but the decent result from that hearing, in which I managed to defeat several challenges from both John Hemming and his friend Samuel Collingwood Smith, has strengthened my resolve that I can do this to a full and final trial.
Or at least give it my best shot. That is the right thing to do.
We have attempted settlement multiple times, because the Court likes to see that, but it has proven impossible.
Which brings me back to the newest judgment.
This involves what the Court calls Publication 1 and Publication 5.
As the Judge states at Paragraph 27. “I have the rather artificial task of determining the “single, natural and ordinary meaning” of the words complained of…”
I have now read this judgment numerous times and received feedback from others, and I have to say it’s a brilliant judgment.
By that I don’t mean ‘brilliant’ as in I got everything I wanted, no I didn’t, but I got enough.
I have been given plenty to work with at trial. That is what matters here.
This judgment is 'brilliant' because the judge not only ably and succinctly outlines the civil case with accuracy and perception (and realises there is so much more going on than an ex-MP suing a journalist) but she does exactly what she said in court she would do, and that is to refine our positions and what this case means. This is why I have decided to run the whole judgment on this page.
Judge Susie Alegre has extensive knowledge of free speech – and the potential curtailing of it - in the wider world. So, it’s her wider understanding of the issues at stake here that I think make this judgment even more important reading.
The potential implications of this lawsuit, should Mr. Hemming win at trial, include a chilling impact on those making ‘crime’ podcasts and for those appearing in them.
Up to this point, I was not aware of the potential censorship impact of this civil case, but I am now.
Some of it potentially plays into the hands of ongoing online censorship including the Online Safety Act.
If you have the time, care or inclination, please read the whole judgment but I thought it would be helpful to show the paragraph numbers I am referring to for easy reference.
Paragraph 28 Sets out that just the act of appearing in certain podcasts – with certain titles - can be problematic. This is aside from whether you defame anyone within the podcast. Imagine the chilling effect that could have on the genre.
Who’s going to want to appear in these type of 'crime' podcasts and put themselves in such a vulnerable position if they are left to carry the can should someone take issue with it? Not me, for one!
Paragraph 41 outlines the problems of people using ‘alleged’ or ‘claimed’ in these podcasts and how that will not “insulate a publisher” from being sued for ‘repeating an allegation’. “The ‘repetition rule’ is deeply embedded in defamation proceedings.” (Paragraph 18).
I have always denied repeating the allegation made against Mr. Hemming.
When Shaun Attwood asked me, I said I didn’t know the truth. But that may not be enough if someone decides to sue you.
That is troubling and has huge implications in terms of discussing anything of this type on the internet. A chilling effect, indeed.
At Paragraph 23 Mr. Hemming submits that what I really meant was he “is a paedophile who raped Esther Baker when she was a child” and further he “has used baseless legal threats to attempt to hide his sexual misdeeds with children.”
In defamation terms, Mr. Hemming is attempting to make this a ‘Chase Level 1’ (the most serious form of defamation), but the Judge did not agree.
The Judge states at Paragraph 32 that “The Claimant’s arguments for Chase level 1 meaning, however, stretch the level of seriousness beyond its natural and ordinary meaning. It appears from the repeated caveats such as “I am not making any accusations about John Hemming” that the Defendant did not ascribe guilt to the Claimant in the way required for a Chase level 1 meaning.”
Neither was the Judge persuaded that it was a Chase Level 2 either, but she concluded that her interpretation of what I had said had a “Chase level 3 meaning - that there are grounds for investigating whether the Claimant was responsible for child abuse. This is borne out in the Defendant’s expressed opinion about how Esther Baker must feel about the need for an effective investigation.”
“Grounds for investigation” is a whole lot different to accusing someone of being a child abuser and the Judge directly tackles the importance of this distinction at Paragraph 33.
Judge Susie Allegre further added at Paragraph 34 that:
“The elements of the publication in relation to strand (ii) of the meaning do not, in my view, suggest that the Claimant’s legal threats are baseless or that they are an “attempt to hide his sexual misdeeds with children.” That would be an extremely strained interpretation. The discussion in Publication 1 tends to indicate that both the Claimant and the Defendant are regularly involved in legal action related to protecting their reputations. This, in my view, tempers the meaning of any reference to the Claimant’s legal threats. Because of this wider context, I do not find that second limb of meaning of Publication 1 is defamatory at common law.” (My underline).
Publication 5 was a post on this Fighting Fund page in which I relayed that I had been under police investigation as a consequence of a report to the Attorney General by Mr. Hemming’s friend & blogger Simon Just. I didn’t name anyone in the post but the other side have now put this information in the public domain.
Simon Just was supposed to be one of Mr. Hemming’s witnesses at this hearing but the judge concluded it was unnecessary to hear from the witnesses. I had previously argued this and I agreed with Judge Alegre.
The judge had read the statements written about me and concluded at Paragraph 36:
“The witness statements, however, indicated that the witnesses were more focused on the wider disputes between the parties and the intention of the Defendant, none of which is directly relevant to the issue of meaning. I therefore decided that the witnesses would not provide useful testimony on the issue of innuendo meaning beyond demonstrating that some individuals were aware of the extrinsic facts and it was unnecessary to hear from them.”
Even though I was prepared to cross-exam a man who has shown great interest in me for a decade, I will have to put that off until, hopefully, another time.
Mr. Just has significant involvement with Mr. Hemming regarding me and, aside from being someone who has reported me to the Attorney General (and failed to get what he wanted from it), he is someone who watches me and reports back to Mr. Hemming about me including being the person who first took the Shaun Attwood interview to Mr. Hemming.
On Publication 5, no one was named in the post. However, Mr. Hemming maintained it was about him even though, as I submitted to Court, it is evident that the post is about a number of people including general references to the type of people who target me for the work I do.
At Paragraph 40 the judgment states: “…The first and second limbs do not lend themselves to a clear analysis of the relevant Chase levels, particularly because, despite the strike out of the Defendant’s defence relating to reference, it is unclear how far the Claimant is implicated in the improper actions described in those two limbs. To ascribe direct specific involvement of the Claimant in those activities would be to overly strain the natural and ordinary meaning of the words.” (My underline).
Publication 5 was found to be defamatory but, clearly, it is far from straightforward and plenty to work with in defence and at trial.
What isn’t recorded in this judgment, is what took place in the courtroom. I will need the transcript for that because it’s interesting.
Part of Mr. Hemming’s argument that I had defamed him was illustrated by all the apparently awful things I had also said about other politicians in the Attwood podcast.
Matthew Hodson, Hemming’s barrister, read a litany of things I had said (based on research for my film ‘Paedophiles in Parliament (2018)’. He did it in an accusatory way.
He repeated statements I had made about former Members of Parliament including Harriet Harman, Edwina Currie, Margaret Thatcher and more.
I told the judge that “yes” I had said those things because they were true and backed up by evidence. However, I had to correct Mr. Hodson because he seemed to be operating under the mistaken belief that I had accused former MP Geoffrey Dickens of being a paedophile.
This is incorrect, as I told the judge, as Mr. Dickens was one of the few MPs trying to get to the bottom of paedophile allegations within the British Parliament.
However, the overall point that Mr. Hemming and his barrister are seeking to make against me was clear. “This woman makes lots of claims about politicians and we’re hoping a High Court judge will have a problem with it.” The aim, of course, is to create a negative impression about me to the judge.
In the end, no respectable judge in a defamation case is going to have a problem with a journalist who can evidence her claims, even one who highlights issues and injustices within the British Establishment.
On the issue of Costs, I again had to battle Mr. Hemming (via his barrister) and also Mr. Smith who made a submission to try and stop me getting ‘Costs in the Case’. Thankfully, the judge agreed with me. Paragraphs 50-51.
At Paragraph 52, the judgment makes clear that this is a preliminary finding that will help us at trial and I agree.
This was the right thing and now we can proceed.
“…at this stage, no findings are made on the potential defences and therefore the ultimate outcome of the case is not decided here.”
This hearing was only about Mr. Hemming but I have a substantial harassment counterclaim against Hemming and Smith.
So that is where we are. Really, we should be heading to trial by the end of this year – that is my sincere desire.
I will do all I can to see that happens including potentially have to bat off more applications from the other parties.
Four years is long enough. I hope Mr. Hemming agrees with me on that, at least.
Again, to the wonderful, solid, kind people who have supported me throughout this, thank you, I appreciate you greatly.
You are the wind beneath my wings!
Here’s the full judgment. X
Neutral Citation Number: [2024] EWHC 1860 (KB)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE KING'S BENCH DIVISION
MEDIA & COMMUNICATIONS LIST
Case No: QB-2022-003558
Royal Courts of Justice Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Date: 19/07/2024
DEPUTY HIGH COURT JUDGE SUSIE ALEGRE
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
JOHN ALEXANDER MELVIN HEMMING | Claimant |
- and - |
|
| Defendant |
SONIA VANESSA POULTON |
|
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mathew Dodson (instructed on a direct access basis) for the Claimant Sonia Poulton representing herself
Hearing dates: 11 July 2024
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Approved Judgment
This judgment was handed down remotely at 10.30am on 19 July 2024 by circulation to the parties or their representatives by e-mail and by release to the National Archives
.............................
Susie Alegre :
Factual Background
1. The Claimant in this case, Richard Hemming, is a former MP who is currently a businessman. Hewas represented by Mr Hodson at the Trial on a Preliminary Issue (TPI) on meaning on a direct access basis. The Defendant is Sonia Poulton, a freelance journalist, who represented herself at the TPI.
2. This is a claim for libel in which the Claimant, Mr. Hemming seeks damages and an injunction arising out of publications by the Defendant. The case more broadly concerns claims in relation to further publications and counter-claims by the Defendant, but those are not relevant to this judgment on meaning as they are not defamation claims. The wider proceedings also involve a third and fourthparty but the issues relating to them are not relevant for the TPI on meaning before me which only concerns the Claimant and the Defendant. This judgment will, therefore, only deal with the meaningof what are described as “Publication 1” and “Publication 5” in these proceedings.
Publication 1
3. The first publication is a segment of a YouTube video published online with the title “Prince Andrew, Epstein, Savile And McCann Part 1: Sonia Poulton / True Crime Podcast 59”. The Defendant was interviewed by the podcast host, Shaun Atwood, in the video for two and a half hours on 3 November 2019. The words complained of appear between 1h17 and 1h21 of the video. The interview was published on YouTube by the podcast host on 19 November 2019 and also published in audio form on Spotify and Stitcher. The video has since been taken down by Shaun Atwood.The words complained of were:
“Shaun Atwood [Host] (‘SA’): Today we have Sonia Poulton on the podcast. This podcast is gonnago over everything from Jimmy Saville to more contemporary big story in that category Epstein.We've a whole slew of political names that are gonna come up and I have watched Sonia's documentary three times now. It’s just absolutely blown my mind the level of research she hasdone into this and whereas you see some people putting videos out really sensationalising andgetting into the most extreme claims, what I like about Sonia is that she draws the line at an appropriate place and it enhances the reliability of what she's about to tell us. But before we go to that dark realm, how are you qualified to speak on this subject?
Sonia Poulton (‘SP’): Well um apart from the fact that I was actually abused as a child so I do understand that, um but that isn't really my entrance. My entrance was meeting people who had been extensively abused as children, finding an empathy with them, understanding them, wherethey were coming from, seeing that their biggest problems were actually dealing with the system and challenging the system that had enabled them to be abused.
…
SA: So, going back to “Paedophiles in Parliament” then Esther Baker and Hemming, we’ve not discussed them yet, have we? […]”
“SP: What I can say to you is, Esther Baker came out several years ago, I think her first interviewwas, was Sky News. I know Esther, I’ve talked to Esther several times. And she came out and shewas saying that she had been abused as a child in – at Cannock Chase and she said it was an MP- and she never named the MP, she never said the M… - it was actually John Hemming who outedhimself, on his own blog…”
John Hemming was the first person to threaten me with legal action for when I released “Paedophiles in Parliament” and said he needed it to be removed that day otherwise, and he’s very au fait with legalese, I think he has a legal background. Erm, and I think, that, to me, I’m not making any accusations about John Hemming but it is quite clear that Esther Baker, feels that shehas a case that needs to be examined - appropriately examined - and what I have seen with Esther is Esther has been savaged by some of the most AWFUL trolls online. Now there, some of them, cross over with my stalkers, some of them are my stalkers. Same people, who stalk me and infact, Esther and I had a case against the same stalker at the same time and it was thrown out, so if you can imagine how she felt as someone is, I’m saying alleging, alleging that she is a victim of child abuse at the hands of a politician. So, imagine how she felt to be told not only is the case not going through for your stalker but he’s given a core participant role on the Child Abuse Inquiry.Pretty awful stuff really, so I don’t know the truth of the story, what I do is that John Hemming is extremely pro- active at any suggestion to do with anything to do with reputation and I don’t have aproblem with that either, coz I’m extremely pro-active about my reputation because my reputation is important to me. So I don’t have a problem with that. What I had a problem with was the way that he approached me and was basically insisting that I remove it, like there and then, as if I’m just going to do it at your behest, you’ve got to be crazy mate. So I didn’t, and I withstood thepressure, and the … err ...threats of what would happen and nothing has happened since. So yeah…
SA: So did he actually take any court action to you or did he try and get you to do like a strike against those documentaries?
SP: Well, I don’t know if he tried to get a strike. I don’t know that. But he approached me directly and said that what I had said was wrong, it was damning and he was going to take legal actionunless I removed it there and then. I was like, nah, nah, I’m not. Coz I’m not accusing him ofanything in it, I’m telling the story, we are allowed to tell stories, I’m a journalist, my job is to reportwhat other people are saying, it isn’t to furnish opinion - that’s when I have an opinion role. But my job as a journalist is to report the story, and he had a problem with me just reporting the story, which I thought was quite interesting given that he had outed himself. She never outed him - he’d outed himself.
SA: Did you have any other legal action from any other quarters?
SP: I have threats, almost on a regular basis. Erm, I have been, oh now let me see, I’ve been,fallen foul of the McCanns several times, as everybody does, everybody who speaks out and err I’ve… their spokesman, Clarence Mitchell, went into a newspaper and called me a conspiracy theorist which was absolutely designed to just say ignore her, you know, as soon as you start that person dabbles in conspiracies, we know what it’s about. It’s the… might as well have just said, you know, she’s got mental health problems, it would’ve had the same impact. So, I’ve had that kind of stuff where people use their establishment contacts to demonise me, to smear me, to try and make me lose work, but I’m still around.
SA: Just adds more credibility to you as far as I’m concerned.
SP: Well the thing is, honestly, you know and I said this to you two earlier [pointing at the production team] is my attitude very much is: we’re all gonna die, so I’d rather go down in a hail of bullets thanon my knees. [SA laughs]. That’s really the bottom line. Right, because I’m not going to submit to anybody, right but if that’s the way it has to be then that’s the way it has to be.
SA: You’re the personification of a Spitfire.”
4. The words above are taken from the transcript of the video provided by the Claimant. I have alsowatched the video and am satisfied that the transcript does not diverge in any material way from the video in relation to the words complained of.
Publication 5
5. The words complained of were published on the Defendant’s fundraising page and are as follows –
“September 10, 2021 POLICE UPDATE
Earlier this year I was interviewed by the police about a potential breach of a reporting restriction regarding an old case. The police have come back to say No Further Action will be taken. Allinvolved were satisfied with the interview I gave. There is a general feeling that this all went too far. There is a reason for that.
There was inordinate pressure applied to the Attorney General’s office, the Metropolitan Policeand the CPS by people who are desperate to stop me reporting on matters of public interest including child abuse.
My brilliant criminal lawyer, Sophie Hall, attended the interview with me – as did Muhammad Butt of BNT – and both witnessed me putting on record the names of people pushing for me to be charged and to take me away from exposing Establishment abuse. These names have been noted by all involved.
It is important for people to know that there are some dark characters out there who spend a hugechunk of their day trolling and harassing survivors of child abuse as well as attacking those who bring awareness to the issue of child abuse.
I would recommend that these people cease and desist from publishing defamatory statements about me regarding this issue. Particularly as it brings the spotlight to them.
I work for the public good, it’s time to start asking who these people work for. And why.”
6. On 13 May 2024 Deputy Master Sabic made an order for there to be a trial to determine thepreliminary issue of the natural and ordinary and/or inuendo, meaning of each of Publications 1 and 5 as defined in the Amended Particulars of Claim.
7. In that order, Deputy Master Sabic also struck out the relevant parts of the Defendant’s amendeddefence related to reference. The issue of reference in relation to Publication 5 was, therefore, not addressed at the hearing before me although I note that there is no summary judgment on that issue.
8. There was previously a judgment by Deputy Master Bard dated 11 June 2021 rejecting an application for summary judgment by the Claimant which touched on the question of meaning, butthat judgment does not bind me in relation to my present assessment following a TPI on meaning with a full hearing on the issue.
9. In addition to deciding the natural and ordinary and/or innuendo meaning of the two publications, Ihave also considered whether the meaning of each of the publications complained of, as determinedby the Court, is defamatory of the Claimant at common law.
10. This is the judgment on those issues following a trial hearing on 11th July 2024.
11. In reaching a conclusion on meaning, the court should first reach a provisional meaning that thehypothetical reader would understand the words to mean (Millett v Corbyn [2021] E.M.L.R. 19 at [8]) before considering the application of the legal principles to determine a meaning.
12. The relevant principles on meaning as they apply today have been helpfully set out by Nicklin J in Koutsogiannis v Random House Group Limited [2020] 4 W.L.R. 25 at [11] – [12]:
“[11] The Court's task is to determine the single natural and ordinary meaning of the words complained of, which is the meaning that the hypothetical reasonable reader would understand the words bear. It is wellrecognised that there is an artificiality in this process because individual readers may understand words indifferent ways: Slim -v- Daily Telegraph Ltd [1968] 2 QB 157, 173D-E, per Lord Diplock.
[12] The following key principles can be distilled from the authorities: see e.g. Slim
-v- Daily Telegraph Ltd 175F; Charleston -v- News Group Newspapers Ltd [1995] 2 AC 65,70 ; Gillick -v- Brook Advisory Centres [2002] EWCA Civ
1263 [7]; Charman -v- Orion Publishing Co Ltd [2005] EWHC 2187 (QB) [8]-
[13] ; Jeynes -v- News Magazines Ltd & Anor [2008] EWCA Civ 130 [14]; Doyle - v- Smith[2018] EWHC 2935 [54]-[56]; Lord McAlpine of West Green -v- Bercow [2013] EWHC 1342 (QB) [66]; Simpson -v- MGN Ltd [2016] EMLR
26 [15]; Bukovsky -v- Crown Prosecution Service [2017] EWCA 1529 [2018] 1
WLR 18; Brown -v- Bower [2017] 4 WLR 197 [10]-[16] and Sube -v- News
Group Newspapers Ltd [2018] EWHC 1234 (QB) [20]:
a. The governing principle is reasonableness.
b. The intention of the publisher is irrelevant.
c. The hypothetical reasonable reader is not naïve but he is not unduly suspicious. He can read between the lines. He can read in an implication more readily than a lawyer and may indulge in a certain amount of loose thinking but he must be treated as being a man who is not avid for scandal and someone who does not, and should not, select one bad meaning where other non-defamatory meanings are available. A reader who always adopts a badmeaning where a less serious or non-defamatory meaning is available is not reasonable: s/he is avid for scandal. But always to adopt the less derogatory meaning would also be unreasonable: it would be naïve.
d. Over-elaborate analysis should be avoided and the court should certainly not take a too literal approach to the task.
e. Consequently, a judge providing written reasons for conclusions on meaning should not fall into the trap of conducting too detailed an analysis of the various passages relied on by the respective parties.
f. Any meaning that emerges as the produce of some strained, or forced, or utterly unreasonable interpretation should be rejected.
g. It follows that it is not enough to say that by some person or another the words might be understood in a defamatory sense.
h. The publication must be read as a whole, and any 'bane and antidote' taken together. Sometimes, the context will clothe the words in a more serious defamatory meaning (for example the classic "rogues' gallery" case). In other cases, the context will weaken (even extinguish altogether) the defamatory meaning that the words would bear if they were read inisolation (e.g. bane and antidote cases).
i. In order to determine the natural and ordinary meaning of the statement of which the Claimant complains, it is necessary to take into account the context in which it appeared and the mode of publication.
j. No evidence, beyond publication complained of, is admissible in determining the natural and ordinary meaning.
k. The hypothetical reader is taken to be representative of those who would read the publication in question. The court can take judicial notice of facts which are common knowledge, but should beware of reliance on impressionistic assessments of the characteristics of a publication's readership.
l. Judges should have regard to the impression the article has made upon them themselves in considering what impact it would have made on the hypothetical reasonable reader.
m. In determining the single meaning, the court is free to choose the correct meaning; it is notbound by the meanings advanced by the parties (save that it cannot find a meaning that is more injurious than the Claimant's pleaded meaning).”
13. Meanings will be considered defamatory at common law if they “substantially affect in an adverse manner the attitude of other people towards a Claimant, or have a tendency to do so” - Triplark v Northwood Hall [2019] EWHC 3494 (QB)) at [11].
14. A Claimant may, by pleading innuendo, show that the words complained of are defamatory because of some particular fact not contained in the statement itself but which is known to those to whom itis published (Gatley on Libel and Slander 13th Edition at 3-015 ). Evidence is admissible as to the sense in which those to whom the publication was published understood it, but such evidenceis not a requirement where, based on the extrinsic facts in question, it is reasonable for a court to infer that some readers must have had that particular knowledge (see, e.g. Wright v Caan [2011]EWHC 1978 (QB) at [26]; Lord McAlpine of West Green v Bercow [2013] EWHC 1342 (QB) at [54].).
15. The question is the meaning a reasonable person with that knowledge would have given to thosewords, not the meaning derived by a particular individual as explained by Greer LJ: “It is not proof of a special fact … merely to call a number of people to say that they understood the words in a defamatory sense; they would have to prove some fact known to them which would be sufficient to entitle any reasonable man with such knowledge to interpret the words in a defamatory sense.” in Tolley v Fry [1930] 1 K.B. 467 at 480, approved by Slesser LJ in Hough v London Express Newspaper Ltd [1940] 2 K.B. 507 at 514.
16. In order to decide on the seriousness of a particular meaning, Brooke LJ, in the case of Chase vNews Group Newspapers Ltd [2002] EWCA Civ 1772; [2003] EMLR 11 at [45] provided guidance, identifying three different levels of, meaning (“the Chase Levels”):
Level 1: The sting of a libel may be capable of meaning that a Claimant has in fact committed some serious act, such as murder.
Level 2: Alternatively it may be suggested that the words mean that there are reasonable grounds to suspect that he/she has committed such an act.
Level 3: Is that they may mean that there are grounds for investigating whether he/she has been responsible for such an act.
17. These levels are shorthand for the broad spectrum of levels of meaning (Brown per Nicklin J at [17]) and the reality of a given meaning may be more nuanced on that spectrum. All three levels may be defamatory of a Claimant but the “sting” of the libel is highest at Level 1 and lowest at Level 3.
18. The “repetition rule” is “deeply embedded” in defamation proceedings (Shah -v- Standard Chartered Bank [1999] QB 241, 261G per Hirst LJ). Its effect has been summarised by May LJ in the Court of Appeal in the same case at p.266D-F:
“The repetition rule in its simplest application is that, if you publish a statement that Y said that X is guilty, itis not a defence to an action for defamation to establish the literal truth of the publication, i.e. that it is indeed true that Y said that X is guilty. You are repeating and endorsing Y's publication and your justification must address the substance of what Y said, not the fact that he said it. The obvious underlying reason for the ruleis that statements of this kind in substance restate the original publication. It is … a rule which encapsulatesthe fact that publications of the bald kind under consideration do in substance amount to a republication ofthe reported publication and that that is their meaning.”
19. However, the effect of repetition will depend on the context. In Hewson v Times Newspapers Ltd [2019] EWHC 650 (QB), Nicklin J explained, at [40]-[41]:
“40. There are myriad ways in which the allegations of others can be reported in a publication. It is impossible to lay down hard and fast rules. Over and over again the authorities make clear that it is the effectof the publication overall that matters. In determining meaning, the cardinal principle is that “it is the overalleffect of the article that counts”: Poulter -v- Times Newspapers Ltd [2018] EWHC 3900 (QB) [43]-[44]; and Poroshenko -v- BBC [2019] EWHC 213 (QB) [28].
41. The effect of the repetition rule is that the use of verbs like “alleged” or “claimed” (however often they are repeated in a publication) is unlikely, in itself, to insulate a publisher from the effect of the rule. If theimpact of the repetition rule on the meaning of reports of allegations made by others is to be mitigated or avoided, the material that has that effect must be found elsewhere in the publication.”
20. In his earlier judgment in Brown v Bower [2017] 4 W.L.R. 197 at [28]-[29], Mr Justice Nicklin, having described the evolution of the repetition rule, went on to say:
“The repetition rule clearly applies when the court is considering the meaning of words, but it takes its placealongside all the other matters to which the Court must have regard when determining meaning. The task is todetermine what the ordinary reasonable reader would understand the words to mean. The repetition rulecannot be applied mechanistically to the determination of meaning. If Ms Page’s strict application of therepetition rule were correct, then it would make no difference to meaning whether the words complained of were: “X proved/alleged/suggested/hinted that Y was a thief”. Although each of those four verbs is apt to convey a subtly different meaning, because each is a repetition of X’s charge against Y, Ms Page’s contention would mean that it would make no difference; applying the repetition rule, the resulting meaning would always be guilt.
29. It seems to me that, as is nearly always the case in determining meaning, context is everything. It is easy toimagine cases where a publication refers to an allegation because the author wants to establish the fact that the allegation was made rather than any suggestion on her part that the allegation is true. Borrowing from Lord Devlin’s analogy, it may be difficult to repeat the allegations of others without suggesting to the reader that the allegations are true, but it can be done. “One always gets back to the fundamental question: what is the meaning that the words convey to the ordinary man: you cannot make a rule about that”….”
21. In applying legal analysis to the meaning of both publications, I have borne in mind the principles set down by Nicklin J in Koutsogiannis. In particular, I have considered the approach to deciding meaning taking account of the “hypothetical reasonable reader”:
“c. The hypothetical reasonable reader is not naïve but he is not unduly suspicious. He can read between the lines. He can read in an implication more readily than a lawyer and may indulge in a certain amount of loosethinking but he must be treated as being a man who is not avid for scandal and someone who does not, and should not, select one bad meaning where other non-defamatory meanings are available. A reader who always adopts a bad meaning where a less serious or non-defamatory meaning is available is not reasonable: s/he isavid for scandal. But always to adopt the less derogatory meaning would also be unreasonable: it would be naïve.
…
k. The hypothetical reader is taken to be representative of those who would read the publication in question.The court can take judicial notice of facts which are common knowledge, but should beware of reliance on impressionistic assessments of the characteristics of a publication's readership.”
22. Both publications appear online, Publication 1 in a ‘true crime’ podcast about high profile paedophiles, Publication 5 on Ms Poulton’s “Fighting Fund” page which is dedicated to givingupdates on her legal battles with people, including the Claimant, in relation predominantly to her online content about child abuse. The hypothetical reader is, therefore, someone who is interested in online content, outside the “mainstream media”, that relates, in particular, to child abuse allegations about people in power. While I refrain from making “impressionistic assessments” of the readership, it is clear that the readers of both publications are people who are looking for information that they feel may be missing in “mainstream media” coverage of these issues. While the reasonable reader should not be “avid for scandal”, they should not be considered to be “naïve”. The hypothetical reasonable reader of both publications is someone who, while not “avid for scandal”, is clearly interested in scandal of a certain type and looking for information about abuses of power, including child abuse by people in power. This perspective informs the analysis of meaning in the words complained of in both publications against the wider context of extrinsic facts pleaded in support of the innuendo meaning of Publication 5.
Publication 1 - Arguments on Meaning
23. In the Amended Particulars of Claim, the Claimant submits that, in its natural and ordinary meaning, Publication 1 meant and was understood to mean that:
i) the Claimant is a paedophile who raped Esther Baker when she was a child;
ii) the Claimant has used baseless legal threats to attempt to hide his sexual misdeeds with children.
24. The Defendant denied the meaning put forward by the Claimant but did not offer a specific meaningof her own in her Amended Defence or in submissions before me. She submitted that the Claimant’s first meaning was ‘based on an overly simplistic and mechanistic approach to therepetition rule.’ As to the second meaning, she said that the words did not mean that any legal threats were baseless. In summary, she said that the natural and ordinary meaning needed to be understood in the broader context of the video and with the caveats that she included to clarify that the allegations were not proven.
25. Mr Hodson drew my attention to the judgment of Steyn J in the separate case of Baker v Hemming [2019] EWHC 2950 (QB) dated 5 November 2019. I note that the judgment was handeddown after the recording of the publication complained of here although before it was published online. I do not find that the judgment in Baker v Hemming has direct relevance to my decision onthe meaning of Publication 1 in this case and therefore I have not considered it further in this part ofmy analysis.
26. For the Claimant, Mr Hodson submitted that the appropriate “Chase level” that should be applied tothe proposed meaning was Chase level 1, particularly in relation to the first limb of meaning. He said that, given the very serious nature of the allegations relating to child abuse, this was theappropriate level. In the alternative, he said that Chase level 2 would be the lowest possible level attributable to such an appalling allegation that would undoubtedly provoke outrage and public condemnation of the Claimant. Ms Poulton argued that ‘the reasonable viewer would not haveunderstood the words complained of to bear such serious meanings’ but did not put forward a specific alternative meaning.
Decision on Meaning – Publication 1
27. I have the rather artificial task of determining the “single, natural and ordinary meaning” of the words complained of taking account of the principles set out in Koutsogiannis. I reached myconclusions on meaning by, firstly, viewing the video which contains the short clip with the words complained of and noting the impression it made on me. I also took account of the impression it would make on the reasonable hypothetical viewer bearing in mind the likely hypothetical viewer of this content. I then went on to apply legal analysis to the meaning without taking an overly analytical approach. I note that I am not bound to adopt the meaning put forward by the Claimant in the absence of a concrete submission on meaning from the Defendant but that I may not adopt a meaning that would be more seriously defamatory than the meaning put forward by the Claimant.
28. I accept, as Mr Hodson submitted, that the overall context of the video, including the title, would put the viewer in the frame of mind that those featured in the video would be criminals and, in particular paedophiles. However, there is a notable contrast in the tone and style of the clip relating to the Claimant as compared to the way the Defendant talks about other people in the video. The short section complained of appears in the middle of the two and half hour interview and is much more measured and qualified in tone and substance than the way the Defendant speaks about allegations made against other politicians and famous people. This gives the impression that the Defendant does not endorse the allegations made by Esther Baker in the way she does the other topics discussed.
29. In her submissions before me the Defendant suggested that using the word “allegedly” took the sting out of any repetition. But it is clear that, in law (Nicklin J in Hewson [41]), simply caveating the repetition of a defamatory statement with terms like “allegedly” does not protect the publisherfrom a claim of defamation by repetition. While using the words “allegedly” or similar caveats doesnot remove the “sting” of the repetition, taking account of the broader context of the video, it is noticeable that the Defendant did not use those terms when discussing other people she said were involved in child abuse, including those she said had threatened her with legal action.Considering then the “bane and antidote” in relation to the allegations by Esther Baker, the hesitancy of the Defendant when talking about this and her insistence that she did not know the facts, set this segment apart from the rest of the video in a way that does have the effect of moderating the very serious sting, and therefore the seriousness of the meaning, when considering the wider context.
30. The single, natural and ordinary meaning that I find in the words complained of in Publication 1 can be divided into two limbs:
(i) Esther Baker made public allegations of child abuse by an MP and John Hemming revealed that those allegations were about him. Esther Baker must feel that those allegations have not been thoroughly investigated.
(ii) John Hemming is very proactive in protecting his reputation, including through the use of legal threats.
31. The underlined sentence in the first limb is opinion and the rest of the meaning is fact. Meaning may include inferences or implications derived from the specific words used as per Lord Morris in Jones v Skelton [1963] 1 W.L.R. 1362 (PC) at 1370–1371: “The ordinary and natural meaning or inferred or indirect meaning— any meaning which does not require the support of extrinsic facts passing beyond general knowledge but is a meaning which is capable of being detected in the language used can be part of the ordinary meaning of words.” Given the very serious nature of theallegations made by Esther Baker relating to child abuse along with the potentially negativeconnotation of the use of the word “outed” which gives the impression of revealing something truebut hidden, meaning (i) is defamatory at common law.
32. The Claimant’s arguments for Chase level 1 meaning, however, stretch the level of seriousness beyond its natural and ordinary meaning. It appears from the repeated caveats such as “I am not making any accusations about John Hemming” that the Defendant did not ascribe guilt to theClaimant in the way required for a Chase level 1 meaning. I am not persuaded by the alternative argument that the publication reached the level of Chase 2 either. When publication 1 is viewed in the wider context of the video as a whole, it stands out in comparison to segments about others such as Epstein or Saville where the Defendant is very direct in her assessment of their guilt. Thiscontrast combined with the reticence and repeated caveats from the Defendant about her lack of knowledge in relation to the allegations about the Claimant does, in my view, temper the seriousness of the meaning so that I find it has a Chase level 3 meaning- that there are grounds for investigating whether the Claimant was responsible for child abuse. This is borne out in the Defendant’s expressed opinion about how Esther Baker must feel about the need for an effective investigation.
33. It cannot be right, as submitted by Mr Hodson, that the serious nature of child abuse allegations alone merits Chase 1 level seriousness, if that were the case, the levels of seriousness would be irrelevant. The allegations are, clearly of a defamatory nature, but the Chase levels refer, more pertinently, the level of certainty expressed around guilt or the likelihood of guilt, rather than the level of seriousness of any alleged crime underlying the words. While both may be defamatory atcommon law,
to say that X is guilty of murder is very different to saying there are grounds for questioning X as part of a murder investigation.
34. The elements of the publication in relation to strand (ii) of the meaning do not, in my view, suggest that the Claimant’s legal threats are baseless or that they are an “attempt to hide his sexual misdeeds with children.” That would be an extremely strained interpretation. The discussion in Publication 1 tends to indicate that both the Claimant and the Defendant are regularly involved in legal action related to protecting their reputations. This, in my view, tempers the meaning of anyreference to the Claimant’s legal threats. Because of this wider context, I do not find that second limb of meaning of Publication 1 is defamatory at common law.
Publication 5 – Arguments on Meaning
35. In the Amended Particulars of Claim, the Claimant submits the following meaning of the words in Publication 5:
i) The natural and ordinary meaning that the Claimant together with the 3rd Party and the 4thParty DL had falsely reported the Defendant to the police for a crime she did not commit and applied pressure to the Attorney General’s Office to question and prosecute the Defendant.
ii) The innuendo meaning that the Claimant, the 3rd Party and the 4th Party had the motive ofcovering up child abuse by those, such as the Claimant himself, who were or had been members of the ‘Establishment’ such as MPs or former MPs.
iii) The innuendo meaning that the Claimant’s motive was to cover up the allegation that he is a paedophile who raped Esther Baker when she was a child.
36. The Claimant provided three witness statements from third parties intended to support the innuendo meaning of parts (ii) and (iii) of the proposed meaning. It is unusual for evidence to becalled at a TPI on meaning although it may be permissible in relation to innuendo. The witness statements, however, indicated that the witnesses were more focused on the wider disputes between the parties and the intention of the Defendant, none of which is directly relevant to the issueof meaning. I therefore decided that the witnesses would not provide useful testimony on the issueof innuendo meaning beyond demonstrating that some individuals were aware of the extrinsic factsand it was unnecessary to hear from them. Those extrinsic facts were broader publications on the Defendant’s fundraising website and other publications by the Defendant including her documentary “Paedophiles in Parliament” which refer to the Claimant and others. As this point wasnot materially contested by the Defendant, no oral evidence was taken at the hearing.
37. The Defendant did not put forward a clear alternative meaning for Publication 5 beyond denial. In her skeleton argument she said:
“The Defendant was not claiming Mr Hemming was a paedophile and has never done so. However, the Claimant has worked in concert with other parties and that includes attacking survivors of child abuse, those alleging it and those who are reporting on it.”
She went on to explain that Publication 5 referred more broadly to her talking about ‘dark forces’ which she says is ‘an accepted and regularly used statement for the attacks she has endured…’. In the hearing, she said that the meaning of Publication 5 referred to others inaccurately accusing the Defendant herself of being a child abuser. Her “Fighting Fund” page, she said, talked more broadly about her various legal cases and that her followers, who would have read it, would understand that she did not accuse the Claimant of being a paedophile. She said that Publication 5 was not defamatory.
38. The issue of innuendo meaning in the submissions on behalf of the Claimant was somewhat confused with innuendo reference although it was submitted that reference was no longer in issuein the case following the order to strike out aspects of the Defendant’s Amended Defence by MasterSabic. That Order has not been the subject of an appeal and therefore the arguments before me, and my conclusions in this judgment, only address innuendo meaning without considering further the question of reference which appears to be no longer in question.
Decision on Meaning - Publication 5
39. Having considered the broader context of the Defendant’s “Fighting Fund” website which includesreferences to threats of legal proceedings by the Claimant and others, as well as the extrinsic facts pleaded by the Claimant, and the context of the likely readership, I find the following natural and ordinary and innuendo meaning of publication 5 which can be separated into three limbs:
i) The Defendant was interviewed by the police about a potential breach of a reporting restrictionrelating to an old case, but she was told no further action would be taken. The interview came aboutdue to improper pressure on the police and the Attorney General from powerful interested partieswho wanted her to stop reporting on public interest issues including child abuse.
ii) : The Defendant gave the names of those people to the police. They use harassment anddefamation as a way of silencing survivors of child abuse and those who raise awareness on the topic.
iii) (Innuendo): Their motivations for trying to cover up child abuse by members of the Establishment should be questioned. Those motivations could include the desire to cover up their own criminal activities.
40. The first and second meanings are statements of fact while the third innuendo meaning, underlined, is a statement of opinion. The first and second limbs do not lend themselves to a clear analysis ofthe relevant Chase levels, particularly because, despite the strike out of the Defendant’s defence relating to reference, it is unclear how far the Claimant is implicated in the improper actions described in those two limbs. To ascribe direct specific involvement of the Claimant in those activities would be to overly strain the natural and ordinary meaning of the words. The level ofseriousness in relation to those meanings is to note that the Claimant was involved, in some way, in those activities. The third limb, which refers to the motivation to cover up child abuse, however,amounts to Chase level 3 seriousness – that this needs to be investigated.
41. In relation to the innuendo meaning of limb 3, the primary extrinsic facts of relevance are the allegations of child abuse made by Esther Baker against the members of the establishment including politicians, police and VIP’s starting in 2015. Those allegations were aired on television news broadcasts, in particular on Sky News in 2015. Due to the inclusion of details in reports on those allegations that led to “jigsaw” identification of the Claimant, once the police investigation was dropped, he revealed that he was one of the people Esther Baker accused in a statement on his blog in 2017. He strongly denied the allegations and no further action was taken by police. Esther Baker sued the Claimant for defamation and he counterclaimed. In her judgment of 5 November 2019 in that case, Steyn J found that: “It follows from the decision I have made in respect of the counterclaim that the Claimant cannot contend that the Defendant raped her or anyone else, or that he sexually assaulted her or stalked and defamed her to cover it up. She is precluded fromcontending that her Tweet, in the natural and ordinary meaning pleaded by the Defendant, was true.”(Baker v Hemming [107]). The defamation proceedings were covered extensively in the mediaincluding in the Daily Mail. Given the wide media coverage naming the Claimant in relation to allegations of child abuse and also in connection with defamation proceedings in relation to those allegations, I am satisfied that some readers of the Defendant’s Fighting Fund page would have had knowledge of these extrinsic facts and their understanding of the words complained of would have been coloured by those facts.
42. Further extrinsic facts pleaded by the Claimant include additional content on the Fighting Fund page about ongoing legal proceedings as well as videos in which the Defendant referred to the allegations made by Esther Baker about the Claimant and to the threat of legal proceedings made by the Claimant. Of particular note is the Defendant’s video, “Paedophiles in Parliament” (PiP) published online on 2nd August 2018 along with the livestream video “The Raw Report 04 – Sued,attacked and fighting back” (SAFB) published on 6 November 2020.
43. I consider it reasonable to assume that the likely audience of Ms Poulton’s Fighting Fund page who would have read Publication 5 would be aware of her work more broadly and some of them would have seen one or other of the videos discussing both the allegations by Esther Baker and the legal proceedings against both Esther Baker and the Defendant. This would have had an impact on theirunderstanding of Publication 5 in relation to the Claimant and the wider context of allegations of child abuse and the use of harassment and defamation claims as a means of covering up allegations.
44. Considering the three limbs of meaning of publication 5 above, I find that all elements of meaning, assuming reference to the Claimant in some capacity, would “substantially affect in an adversemanner the attitude of other people towards [the Claimant] or have a tendency to do so. - Triplark v Northwood Hall [2019] EWHC 3494 (QB)) at [11].
45. The first limb meaning includes the use of improper pressure on public authorities, a matter which is extremely serious, implies some form of corruption, and is liable to lower the Claimant and others involved in the estimation of other people. The second limb adds to the first limb of meaning by introducing other tactics to cover up serious criminality, namely the use of harassment and legal proceedings. The third limb questions the motivations of those involved in bringing legal action suggesting that they may, themselves, have been involved in criminality that they are trying to cover up. All three limbs would clearly have a tendency to adversely affect other people’s attitudes towards the Claimant byvirtue of his connection with these activities. Therefore, the meaning of all three limbs is defamatory at common law.
46. The single natural and ordinary meaning of Publication 1, with the underlined portion being opinion while the rest is fact, is:
(i) Esther Baker made public allegations of child abuse by an MP and John Hemming revealed that those allegations were about him. Esther Baker must feel that those allegations have not been thoroughly investigated.
(ii) John Hemming is very proactive in protecting his reputation, including through the use of legal threats.
47. The first limb is defamatory at common law, the second limb is not defamatory at common law.
48. The natural and ordinary and innuendo meanings of Publication 5 are as follows with the underlined portion being opinion while the rest is fact:
i) The Defendant was interviewed by the police about a potential breach of a reporting restrictionrelating to an old case, but she was told no further action would be taken. The interview came about due to improper pressure on the police and the Attorney General from powerful interested partieswho wanted her to stop reporting on public interest issues including child abuse.
ii) : The Defendant gave the names of those people to the police. They use harassment anddefamation as a way of silencing survivors of child abuse and those who raise awareness on the topic.
iii) (Innuendo): Their motivations for trying to cover up child abuse by members of theEstablishment should be questioned. Those motivations could include the desire to cover up their own criminal activities.
49. All three limbs of the meaning of Publication 5 are defamatory at common law.
50. The Claimant, the Defendant and the 3rd Party provided written submissions on costs. In summary, Mr Hodson, for the Claimant, argued that, if any part of the meaning was found to be defamatory at common law, costs should be awarded to the Claimant for the TPI on meaning taking note of the Defendant’s earlierresistance to agreeing for a TPI on meaning and her failure to provide alternative meaning to that proposed by the Claimant simply denying the Claimant’s meaning was correct which has resulted in additional work forthe Claimant in responding to the Defence. The 3rd Party, in summary, supported the Claimant’s position and responded to points made by the Defendant related to him, but, as he was not involved in the TPI on meaning, his submissions have little or no relevance to the decision on costs for this part of the proceedings.
51. Ms Poulton argued that costs should be costs in the case as is the usual approach to a TPI on meaning. She submitted that the oppressive way the wider case has been run by the Claimant and the 3rd Party has prevented her from having her own effective legal representation while costs have been mounting and said that she had repeatedly tried to settle. In addition, she submitted that the unusually long hearing time set aside for the TPI with two days requested when the hearing was, in fact, concluded in under three hours, and the proposal of witnesses that were deemed unnecessary has added disproportionate costs to this hearing.
52. The outcome of a TPI on meaning, including a finding that meanings are defamatory at common law, helps to clarify the potential defences in a case and narrow issues for trial or potential settlement. While I have found that the meanings of the publications are defamatory at common law, at this stage, no findings are made on the potential defences and therefore the ultimate outcome of the case is not decided here. These proceedings are much broader than the issue of defamation in the two publications I have considered in this judgment and the behaviour of the parties’ in relation to the proceedings overall raises questions that go far beyond the issues before me. Elements of the submissions on costs for this hearing make it clear that it would be inappropriate to address costs in relation to the TPI on meaning separately from the costs in the proceedings as a whole. As the outcome of a TPI on meaning is not dispositive of the case but is inextricably linked with the outcome of the wider case, I do not think it is appropriate make a separate costs order for this part of the proceedings. Therefore, I make an order for costs in the case.
Deputy High Court Judge Susie Alegre
Well, Thursday was interesting - and short - in Court.
Previously I had unsuccessfully opposed Mr. Hemming’s Court application where he and his barrister fought for a two day ‘preliminary trial’ and to have witnesses heard.
Once the decision was made I accepted it and started to see definite advantages to it.
I prepared for two days - pre-recorded Friday’s breakfast show - and looked forward to the cross examination of Hemming’s witnesses.
I submitted my skeleton argument, my bundle and authorities not only on time but BEFORE time!
What once was alien is now less alien. Legal arguments start to make sense, procedure, too.
I’m actually grateful now that I have been forced to learn what I have with this case and I know it will prove to be a rich and rewarding experience. Oddly or not.
Back to today. The Judge - Dr. Susie Allegre - was very clear about how she intended to run things in her court room.
Whatever the outcome I liked her no-nonsense approach.
So, the whole thing was over in less than three hours and no witnesses appeared.
Judge decision on yesterday is yet to come. More info when that’s received.
Thank you to my wonderful supporters who came to the Court and thank you to each and everyone who supports me and my work.
Big love. x
Hello lovely people, this is a quick update.
I shall be in the High Court this week on Thursday and Friday the 11 and 12 July, 2024.
This is at the request of former MP John Hemming who seeks to determine if I have defamed him on two occasions.
As you know, John Hemming is suing me and I am suing him and his friend and associate Samuel Collingwood Smith in a harassment counterclaim.
The judge this week will decide if my response in a podcast was defamatory.
I was asked about allegations regarding Mr. Hemming and I said I didn't know the truth.
Mr. Hemming is suing me on the basis that my response was unlawful; I am defending on the basis that it was not.
There is a further issue the judge is asked to determine.
That is of a post on this 'Fighting Fund' page in which I referred to being under police investigation and how the police had come back after six months to say 'No Further Action'.
No names were mentioned. Mr. Hemming sued me over it. The judge will decide if the original post was defamatory.
As this is essentially Mr. Hemming's hearing to determine his points, he has four witnesses to support his claim - including himself - and who will be cross-examined.
I consider this the right way forward.
It will be interesting to see what the judge decides on both points.
I am representing myself as I have at the last two hearings.
A huge amount of money has been raised - and spent - getting this far and it was time to go it alone for an assortment of reasons already explained on this page.
As ever, I want to thank all the amazing people who got me this far in this case. I am truly grateful for all the support.
I shall update asap after the hearing.
UPDATE
HEMMING VS POULTON & OTHERS
Wednesday 15 May 2024
Hello lovely people, I haven’t properly updated this page for months and that is because it is important to follow due process and to wait until after the recent Court hearing and subsequent judgment. That is where we are now, and I am able to share what has been said in open court. Also, because I am publicly-funded, it is vital that I maintain this page with as much transparency as the legal process allows.
JUDGMENT
So, this week on Monday, I was summoned together with ex-MP John Hemming, his barrister Matthew Hodson, blogger Samuel Collingwood Smith and their acquaintance Darren Laverty, to a High Court online teams hearing where the judge, Deputy Master Irena Sabic KC, handed down oral judgment from a hearing nearly two weeks ago.
ATTEMPTS TO MINIMISE MY COUNTERCLAIM OF HARASSMENT
At stake was a serious watering-down of my extensive counterclaim against Messrs. Hemming and Smith.
Mr. Smith had made this application (while Mr. Hemming had made another, more details below) and Smith wanted to take an axe to my harassment claim before we get to trial.
In giving her judgment regarding Mr. Smith’s requests, Deputy Master Sabic said she did not consider it appropriate to strike out any part of my counterclaim and denied Mr. Smith’s entire application. 100 per cent.
I am aware Mr. Smith has been sending inadvisable emails since this judgment on Monday, but those are the facts. Mr. Smith was also denied permission to appeal against this. Again, those are the facts. His application against me failed in its entirety.
Of course, Smith will still appeal against this – even though he was denied permission to appeal - because that’s what Mr. Hemming and Mr. Smith always do. It will be interesting to see what the High Court has to say about that. The judge was very clear in denying her permission to him on Monday and the judgment was right.
What was interesting was one hour before judgment, Mr. Smith emailed me claiming I owed him several hundred pounds from a previous order from three years ago! I had no idea what he was talking about. I told the judge that this was a ploy where he was attempting to off-set any costs against him if he lost. I have yet to get to the bottom of his claims that I owe him money although he has written this to various people who have all contacted me. Because that's the way it works now. I get to see what has been said behind my back in real time. Thank goodness.
UPDATE FOR TRANSPARENCY: Even though Mr. Smith is a prolific writer of emails to me, it fell to Mr. Hemming to contact me yesterday on 18/5/24 to inform me that Mr. Smith had got this wrong. That I did not, in fact, owe Mr. Smith any money at all.
I knew this, it wasn't news to me. However, it will be news to the people that Mr. Smith had sent emails to this week claiming I owed him money when the truth is actually the reverse: he owes me money as ordered by the court.
Funny old world. So many people want to invert it. I just like plain truth, makes life simple.
DEFENDED MYSELF
As for the judgment, I was stunned and relieved. Mostly because I had defended myself against a substantial application drawn up with the aid of Mr. Smith's sometime-barrister and with Mr. Smith representing himself in court.
Obviously, Mr. Smith was not happy with the judgment. He heard it. I saw his reaction. Then he turned off his camera.
The judge wanted to know why he had, and he put it back on again. It was very odd.
THREE HEADINGS
In making her decision, the judge broke it down into three sections: Mr. Laverty in my counterclaim, privileged pleadings, and Mr. Smith's blogs.
In his application, Mr. Smith had sought to substantially change my counterclaim against him and his friend, ex-MP John Hemming. Smith had wanted the following:
1. To remove all mention of Mr. Laverty from the counterclaim (as Mr. Laverty and I had previously settled – see November 2023 post below for fuller details). This was denied. The Judge said it was important that all future judges in this case had full visibility of what had taken place. I agree 100 per cent and had argued as such following what other judges had said regarding events and chronology.
2. Mr. Smith also argued about the issue of being able to report my solicitors to the Solicitor Regulatory Authority (SRA). Actions, I told the Court, that he sometimes employs on behalf of himself and Mr. Hemming against opposing solicitors. Smith claimed that such reports were immune from court proceedings, and he said the law backed him up on this.
The Judge denied him this as well and, frankly, I was grateful. It would set a terrible precedent and would give free rein for anyone to make malicious and harassing reports to SRA for lawyers who are just doing their job.
This was one of the most stunning aspects of the hearing two weeks ago when Mr. Smith stood up in front of the judge and said that the law backed him up in reporting my lawyers even if such reporting was “malicious”.
I was shocked to hear this and I responded to the judge that IF that was the case then the law was wrong. She nodded.
Any intelligent person listening to what Mr. Smith had said should surely have thought the same! It was an outrageous statement. Thankfully he was denied being able to remove this from my claim.
3. Smith also wanted the Court to permit them to strike out other paragraphs that document the harassment I am claiming to have experienced, including on Smith’s blog. In court, Mr. Smith claimed what he published about me fell under the remit – and was protected by – codes of journalism. I told the judge he wasn’t a journalist. Thankfully, he failed on all of this as well.
This was all right and just and it was great to hear the judgment. When justice works well, it soothes the mind and soul.
COSTS
Costs were awarded in my favour. Ordinarily - when I had a barrister and solicitors - that would've been around the £10k+ mark but because I am now representing myself my costs are low. And I mean LOW. £150 for Mr. Smith to pay to me and which also bodes well moving forward and making it achievable that I can defend myself to, and at, trial.
This is a significant win in being able to prove my case. Which is ultimately about so much more and will involve the huge amount of money I have already spent in defending myself and on professional lawyers. Plus, my being awarded costs against Mr. Smith also meant that I didn't have to pay the £4,500 that he wanted from me for his failed application. So that was a great result, too.
HEARING - 1 MAY 2024
This judgment followed a High Court hearing in London two weeks ago.
It was originally intended to be a Case Management Conference to discuss budgets and disclosures but Mr. Hemming put in one application and Mr. Smith put in another and these applications ended up taking precedent over what the CMC had previously been about. More delays to trial.
At the hearing, John Hemming applied for a preliminary hearing before we get to trial to determine meaning regarding his claim against me. This was permitted and we will have a two-day hearing – date to be confirmed.
His barrister also sought a change in my pleadings relating to a post on this page – which is part of Mr. Hemming’s claim – and that was permitted by the judge.
Because these things were allowed, and because Mr. Hemming had paid for the application to be considered in the first place, it fell to me to pay the costs. That’s the way it works in court. Mr. Hemming wanted me to pay £7k for his litigation and barrister. I opposed that and the judge knocked it down to £4k. I accepted that.
It’s a swings and roundabouts thing at times, and certainly when you are in and out of as many hearings that Hemming and Smith like to be with me. I have previously been awarded £8k against Mr. Hemming when the judge described his behaviour towards me as “unreasonable and oppressive.”
DELAYS TO TRIAL
I wasn’t hugely keen on the idea of a preliminary issues hearing. I told the Court this felt like another delay to trial when we’ve already had so many. I would have gone to trial years ago, if I had my choice.
I have long been of the opinion that the multiple applications are tactics to obstruct and delay me. I have said that in court documents and in court several times.
So, yes, there is a definite feeling that I am keener than anyone else to get to trial.
Which is odd, because Hemming and Smith keep attempting to burden me with more lawsuits.
Lots of lawsuits and litigation but not lots of trials. Weird.
SETTLEMENT
Then there’s the ongoing issue of settlement which is in the public domain after the last hearing. They’ve blogged about it as well. To all those wonderful people who have funded me, and whom deserve clarity, let me say this: I cannot settle with them because this will not stop. Let me explain.
Under court and legal guidance, I agreed attempts at mediation and settlement.
Courts like to see you have tried to do that, if possible, and I did try.
At one stage I even went so far as to include the possibility of editing the documentary 'Paedophiles in Parliament (2018)' which I had made and in which Mr. Hemming featured.
But, in the end, it was not possible for me to settle because, as said in court, the alleged harassment against me continued – even during settlement!
ALLEGED CONTINUED HARASSMENT
Examples of the continued alleged harassment during the last settlement attempt (under direction from a judgment in November 2023) is that Mr. Smith wrote heinous and defamatory blogs misrepresenting the last judgment, calling me a child abuser, anti-semitic and claiming I am being sued for child abuse. All nonsense.
He further repeated this – at the same time – in a letter to a venue that I was booked to appear at.
In December 2023 Mr. Smith sent a shocking letter to the Trustees of Riddings Park Community Centre in Derby. It was sent with the support of Mr. Hemming.
This letter is now in the public domain following the hearing two weeks ago. It’s stomach-churning stuff to read such insanity about yourself and sent with the intention of losing you work and having you cancelled.
In this letter, Mr. Smith repeatedly defamed me, told the Trustees that I was a safeguarding risk, that I was being sued for child abuse and made a legal threat to the Trustees should the event go ahead.
Appalling stuff, obviously, and particularly when one already has an existing harassment claim against the men involved in sending the letter. Not very wise.
The seven trustees held an emergency meeting. Two of them so scared by the idea that a “former Member of Parliament” had problems with me that they resigned.
Five trustees voted for the event to go ahead. It did and it was fantastic.
I remain very grateful to the good people of Riddings. Cowing to such threats is no solution.
Besides, several of the Trustees told me they had looked at Mr. Smith’s website and immediately knew there was something wrong there.
But my point is this, that was all done WHILE Hemming and Smith were claiming to want to settle the claim with me and end all these issues. That was when I realised that even if I settled, they would not leave me alone.
I have made it clear in court that it is my experience that these men are obsessively fixated on me.
Therefore, there is no possibility of settlement. I need protection.
The fact remains, they have given me no alternative but to keep defending myself because they keep attacking me and my representatives. I will do whatever it takes, obviously within the law, to do that.
MY LAWYERS
As submitted in my skeleton argument and in my bundle, and stated in open court, Mr. Smith and Mr. Hemming have allegedly displayed a pattern of harassing my legal team.
I have had a bunch of lawyers. It has cost an absolute fortune – well in excess of £100k – and I am now forced to represent myself because I allege that Smith and Hemming have set a course of draining my funds with unnecessary and vexatious litigation and threatening my representatives.
I told the court that Mr. Smith, with the backing of Mr. Hemming, had bombarded a Jewish pro-bono lawyer I had acquired at Christmas 2023 and whom ended up parting ways with me after a three-day email campaign from Smith and because of my criticisms of what is happening in Gaza. I am not antisemitic but I am anti-genocide. It’s that simple.
The lawyer and I separated amicably but his firm already had an outstanding SRA complaint from Smith. The lawyer kindly wrote an application on my behalf to Court to explain what had happened.
WHAT IS THIS ALL ORIGINALLY ABOUT?
People wonder what I could have done SO BAD to make ex-MP John Hemming and his friend and legal assistant Samuel Collingwood Smith so mad, so angry that they have pursued me for four years and offered free legal help to others to do the same.
My 'crime'? It’s well-documented in two judgments on this Fighting Fund page (June 2021 and November 2023) but here it is briefly:
During a podcast recorded on 3 November 2019, You Tuber Shaun Attwood asked me about allegations regarding John Hemming and I said I didn’t know the truth of what had been said. That’s it. I know it’s hard for people to believe but that’s what it is.
Mr. Hemming has maintained in court that I repeated the allegation made by Esther Baker and I defamed him. I deny this.
He has also maintained that I am trying to prove in court that the allegation is true.
None of this is correct. I have never set out to prove Esther Baker's allegations and neither do my funders think so.
What I am working to prove in court is that Mr. Hemming and Mr. Smith have acted in concert with others to vex and harass me because I made a film called ‘Paedophiles in Parliament (2018)’ – which documents four decades of allegations in the British Parliament, including Mr. Hemming’s.
The short segment that features him and Ms. Baker is quite clear that he was investigated by the police, that he was not charged and his accuser, Esther Baker was then investigated for her allegations against him.
Despite a threat from him on the first day it came out, Mr. Hemming had not been able to sue me for defamation because what was said in 'Paedophiles in Parliament (2018)' was an accurate representation of what had taken place when I made the film.
Following a successful counterclaim against his accuser in 2019 - in which she is no longer allowed to make those allegations about him - Mr. Hemming further attempted to sue me for the GDPR of 'PIP (2018)' in 2023 (another lawsuit!) but that has been stayed (put on hold indefinitely) by the High Court with the warning that if he attempts to sue me again for it, it will be considered through the lens of Abuse of Process.
WHERE I AM NOW
So that is where we are in Hemming vs Poulton. I told the judge that I think much of what has happened is a waste of not only my time but a waste of precious court resources. I do not consider the pursue of me to be about justice. I will continue to defend myself. I am also continuing to raise funds to pay costs now and in the present, should I need to. My own costs, as said, are now minuscule but I still have other costs ongoing. Any support is always appreciated. Again, as ever, I want to thank all the wonderful people who have supported me throughout these four years. You got me this far and to a place where I have learnt enough that I could successfully defend myself in High Court. That's an amazing feeling. Onwards, always. Love and appreciate you greatly! x
A quick update: I was in the High Court on Wednesday. It was initially intended to be a Case Management Conference to determine when we will be moving forward to trial - something I am keen to move faster on at this stage given I've had four years of being in the legal system with this.
However, it turned into something else due to further applications from ex-MP John Hemming and his friend, Samuel Collingwood Smith. We're awaiting word from the Judge and then I will report a more thorough update here.
Thank you gorgeous and glorious people who have supported me throughout this. Truly appreciated.
I have now paid blogger Samuel Collingwood Smith £195, this was the agreed amount for his compliance with a High Court order.
Mr. Smith had published extensive comments (accusing me of depraved and serious crimes) on his creepily titled ‘Witchfinder General’ blog from an ‘anonymous commenter’.
The High Court ordered Smith to supply me with the full identity of the commenter - and that is what he has done.
The commenter has since removed the comments. I haven't sued them because they do not have money for a lawsuit.
I will pursue them in the future, should they continue. All of this was said in the High Court.
I have complied with the terms of the order, to the letter, and will continue to do so.
I pursued this course of action because my good reputation is vital to the work I do.
I don’t represent media billionaires or politicians or royalty or the establishment, but the people.
Smearing me with heinous lies can potentially harm what I do. I won’t allow that to happen.
So, let this serve as a warning to other ‘anonymous commenters’ seeking to harm my reputation.
I will pursue this action again, should I need to.
You can't buy a good reputation, but you can defend and protect it.
Hello All,
Following the two-day hearing in the High Court on October 17 and October 18, 2023 in Hemming vs Poulton the judgment has been handed down this morning.
I represented myself against all three parties. This was through necessity.
I have been billed approximately £150k so far - which is a phenomenal amount without even getting to trial – and should tell people something of what I have experienced.
Former Lib-Dem MP Mr. John Hemming was represented by barrister Matthew Hodson. Mr. Hemming’s friends and associates Mr. Samuel Collingwood Smith and Mr. Darren Laverty represented themselves.
For the avoidance of doubt, and because the situation is ongoing, this extensive post is primarily about Mr. Hemming and Mr. Collingwood Smith. Unless Mr. Laverty is directly mentioned – as in the paragraph about him or when the judge refers to him – this is not about him. I wish to make that clear to avoid any unnecessary confusion moving forward.
Everything that follows was in open court or in the judgment.
There was a great deal of information covered in those two days and so for ease I have broken it down into categories.
Also, for ease of reading, I have replaced ‘Defendant’, ‘Claimant’, ‘3rd Party’ and ‘4th Party with our names.
OTHER PEOPLE’S TWEETS
Mr. Hemming sought to sue me for defamation regarding other people’s tweets from April 2021 that did not mention him, and I deny were about him. Thankfully, his application was unsuccessful. Costs were awarded to me.
The Judge, Mrs. Justice Hill described this part of the two-day hearing as: “the most complex and time-consuming issue” and awarded my “costs of meeting the application, in accordance with the general “loser pays” rule set out in CPR 44.2(2)(a).”
MALICE & HARASSMENT
Mr. Hemming sought to add ‘malice’ and ‘harassment’ to his case. This was allowed. Costs were awarded to him.
The Judge expressed some concern about legal conduct while I was professionally represented by my barrister and lawyers and acknowledged that this contributed to her allowing Mr. Hemming permission to advance a harassment claim and acknowledging an, as yet, unknown outcome regarding myself and Mr. Darren Laverty. (See below – My Conclusion – for more details on this).
MY AMENDED HARASSMENT COUNTERCLAIM
I have added new pleadings to my case based on what has been published about me on Samuel Collingwood Smith’s blog by himself (calling me a 'child abuser') and extensive comments from an ‘anonymous commenter’ all occurred while this case was live. (See Mr. Smith's Submissions below for more details).
The amendments had already been agreed save for the adding of a paragraph and the withdrawing of an admission. I failed on one. The judgment described this as my having succeeded on around 50% but lost on the remainder.
This was one of the issues involving my legal team. I have agreed to the cost of that one issue but the remainder of the costs of the amendments shall be costs in the case (in other words, who eventually wins the overall case will receive them).
MR. SMITH’S SUBMISSIONS
Samuel Collingwood Smith, who is a McKenzie Friend and very close friend of John Hemming, represented himself.
I have had three years of litigation from Mr. Smith, and this was the first time I have witnessed him in court.
1. He asked the Court to award him ¼ of the costs of preparing the court bundle as he claimed that through my actions his costs had increased. I opposed this and was successful. The usual rule of ‘costs in the case’ was maintained.
Justice Hill observed that there was nothing to suggest I had created problems for Mr. Smith in compiling the court bundle and she states in the judgment:
“I therefore do not see a basis for ordering (Miss Poulton) to pay ¼ of (Mr. Smith’s) costs of the bundle as sought. He advanced no further arguments to support his application that (Miss Poulton) should pay his hearing costs beyond the preparing of the bundle. I observe that he chose to attend the full two days of the hearing, even when applications that did not affect him were being considered.”
2. Mr. Smith also submitted details of eye problems which Mr. Hemming sought to partly rely on in bringing a new lawsuit against me (see details below) claiming that Mr. Smith has suffered eye stress as a consequence of dealing with me. He submitted evidence to show he had eye issues.
I opposed this. Thankfully, I succeeded.
The judgment states: “One clinician had written on 5 July 2023 that (Mr. Smith) had been suffering from stress, but otherwise I did not discern clear medical evidence in support of the proposition advanced as to the cause of it.”
I was happy to hear it.
Given that Mr. Smith had sued me once (then forced to discontinue the claim when he sought professional advice and only after I had spent thousands defending myself) and then issued a further lawsuit against me (which he did not follow through but, again, forced me to find the money to defend myself) I think it would’ve been too much to take if the court had awarded him anything on the basis of my creating his stress.
3. Mr. Smith sought assistance regarding the court and an ‘anonymous commenter’ whom he had published on his blog and who had accused me of being involved in murder, gang rape, corruption with the Metropolitan Police, stealing data and more heinous crimes. These are the comments that have been newly added to my lawsuit.
Again, thankfully, his submission failed.
The Judge wrote: “I do not consider it appropriate to make a pre-emptive order of the type sought by (Mr. Smith).”
4. Mr. Smith further sought an order that I be prohibited from further use of the information disclosed regarding the Commenter on his blog. I opposed this as I had already agreed terms when I sought the identity of the commenter (a Norwich Pharmacal Order) and Justice Hill was satisfied with that.
I have no intention of breaking the terms of that order and I made that clear.
The Judge wrote: “I therefore assume he accepts that this order was unnecessary given that the Senior Master’s order had already addressed this issue, in the usual way…”
It is standard practice to pay a small sum of money when seeking a Norwich Pharmacal Order and my former legal team had already agreed to pay Mr. Smith for supplying me with the identification and details of the anonymous commenter on his blog.
I had asked Mr. Smith for details to send him this amount in June but that was not forthcoming.
I have happily agreed to pay £195 as I considered that a small amount to receive information regarding ‘The Commenter’ and how I may need to protect myself from this person moving forward.
I advise anyone dealing with such an issue to apply for a Norwich Pharmacal, many people will be unaware it is available to them (I was) and at a small and reasonable cost.
Suffice it to say, I was extremely happy with all the outcomes regarding Mr. Collingwood Smith.
A FURTHER NEW LAWSUIT REGARDING MY DOCUMENTARY PAEDOPHILES IN PARLIAMENT (2018)
In addition to his existing lawsuit, Mr. Hemming sought to initiate a new GDPR lawsuit against me in June 2023: he planned to compel me to update my documentary.
Note: he had never sued me for defamation even though he had threatened to legally pursue me in 2018 when it was released.
I defended this GDPR claim on the basis that there had been ‘no material change’ to the film contents, it still remained relevant, and I had reported about Mr. Hemming and Miss Esther Baker under a Journalistic Exemption.
When Mr. Hemming issued this new claim against me in June, following my failure to settle on inappropriate terms (details below under SLAPP headline), the Court had previously ‘stayed’ (put a hold on) the application as it ‘relates to similar issues between the parties’.
In other words, the existing lawsuit already covers similar ground and a further lawsuit was questionable.
In July, Master Stevens in the High Court directed that Mr. Hemming, if so advised, should file and serve a witness statement and further directions would be heard at the October 17/18 hearing including consideration of whether the claim should be dismissed as an abuse of process.
Thankfully, Mrs. Justice Hill expressed concerns about the treatment towards me:
“I do have concerns that the manner of the proceedings is designed to cause (Miss Poulton) problems of expense and harassment of the sort that calls into question whether it is being pursued for an improper collateral purpose.
The bringing of this claim as a separate claim, and the forceful arguments that it should proceed separately (to which proposition (Mr. Smith) and (Mr. Laverty) added strong support) adds to this picture, especially when it appears tolerably
clear that if the KB claim does proceed, it should be consolidated with the QB claim (see [243]-[247] below).”
“When one also factors in (i) (Mr.Hemming’s) application to add a significant number of claims to the QB claim; (ii) (Mr. Smith’s) application to commence detailed costs assessment proceedings against her for a sum of £95 (see [312-[316]
below); and (iii) (Mr. Laverty’s) new breach of contract claim against her, (Miss Poulton’s) submissions about harassment and oppression appear persuasive.”
The judge refused to strike out the claim as “an abuse of process at this stage” and also refused to lift the stay meaning Mr. Hemming cannot progress his new lawsuit against me at present.
She said: “I continue to have very real concerns that this claim is not “worth the candle” and is thus potentially within the third category of abuse described at [223]-[226] above.”
FIGHTING FUND
Mr. Hemming and Mr. Smith have opposed my Fighting Fund from the start.
That is this page and the money it has enabled me to raise publicly and privately to defend myself against their lawsuits and any other legal situations that may arise as a consequence of my work as an investigative journalist.
The judge allowed Mr. Hemming to add one of my posts to his defamation case. I deny this was about him/them.
This was a general post about the enemies I have as a journalist. It did not name them because it was not about them.
As I told the judge: “Because of the work I do I have accrued many enemies but Mr. Hemming and Mr. Smith centre themselves in my life. They try and make everything I write and say about them in order to turn into lawsuits that they draw up themselves and at little cost to them.”
MR. MUHAMMAD BUTT
Muhammad Butt, CEO of ONEVSP (formerly Brand New Tube) – who has previously contributed to my Fighting Fund and employed me in a freelance capacity – submitted a witness statement testifying to alleged harassment of me and him and he was also in court (as were other supporters - thank you, dearly).
Mr. Butt is mentioned in the judgment as Mr. Smith objected to my including him (even though I was forced to because Mr. Hemming had brought him into proceedings attempting to convince the judge that he was ‘vexatious’ – when he was absolutely not). The Judge did not have an issue with Mr. Butt’s contribution to the hearing.
The judgment states:
In light of these circumstances it is hard to sustain the argument that (Miss Poulton's) conduct in insisting on the inclusion of these documents was inappropriate, let alone so inappropriate that she should be penalised in costs."
It should be noted that Rise – the breakfast show I have produced for OneVSP – is currently on a break at Mr. Butt’s request.
I fully understand.
Muhammad Butt has allegedly endured threats and harassment over three years with the aim of having him drop me, and I think there’s only so much one person can take, in my opinion.
Certainly, no other platform or news outlet have stood by me and my work like Muhammad has and, no matter whether we work together in the future, I am deeply grateful to Mr. Butt for the last three years.
No one should be attacked - as we have both alleged - for working with an independent journalist.
MR. DARREN LAVERTY
Having previously settled with Mr. Darren Laverty in September 2021 (see post below) I applied for injunctive relief for alleged breach of contract. He submitted a counter application. This will continue.
Mr. Smith sought to have this transferred to County Court (even though, as the judge noted, he is not a party to the applications) but she refused to permit this stating:
“In my judgment such a transfer would be inappropriate. These applications arise out of alleged breaches of a High Court settlement agreement and are made in the course of an ongoing High Court claim.”
Justice Hill noted that Mr. Laverty sought his own costs for the hearing, but he was denied these. The Judge wrote: “He advanced no grounds on which (Sonia Poulton) or any other party should pay his costs of the hearing and I can see none.”
SLAPP - THE ALLEGED SILENCING OF A JOURNALIST
I am going to quote directly from the judgment to sum up this point.
This is in regards to Mr. Hemming’s proposed new lawsuit that was not allowed to go ahead.
“She also submitted that (i) the claim had only been brought because she had refused to settle the QB claim on terms that would have disadvantaged her; (ii) it is part of a pattern of (Mr. Hemming), (Mr. Smith) and (Mr. Laverty) working together to pursue her, her supporters (such as Mr Butt) and her legal representatives; (iii) specifically, it is a “SLAPP” (a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation), intended to intimidate, and silence her, in particular to increase her costs so as to interfere with her fundraising; (iv) in fact, due to the demands of the “complete bombardment” of litigation she had experienced over the last three years, she no longer had lawyers to assist her; and (v) (Mr. Hemming) and (Mr. Smith) are serial litigants who engage in litigation more widely than cases against her, with reference being made to examples of (Mr. Hemming) being criticised by judges and an assertion that (Mr. Smith) has acted contrary to the guidance for the conduct of McKenzie Friends.”
MY CONCLUSION
It was a huge undertaking to represent myself. I have never done such a thing before; I was terrified, and it has been a steep learning curve. I am grateful for the experience and pleased with the results.
I feel a renewed confidence about my work and what I stand for.
I found the judge – Mrs. Justice Hill – to be fair and even-handed. She gave me a decent opportunity to defend myself even with my inexperience against a professional barrister who is also a judge on the circuit.
There were two specific areas in which the judge criticised my litigation and, interestingly, both of those were nothing to do with me, per se, but the conduct from my former legal representatives.
This included my former barrister filing a late submission to the court - a day before a hearing in July 2022 - that Mr. Hemming had time-barred issues, e.g. attempting to sue me for defamation after the one year statute-limited date.
This late submission had been described as a ‘tactical move’, which I denied.
I had no prior knowledge that my legal team had raised this late submission until I arrived at court and was informed by one of my lawyers, I made that clear to the judge.
I also pointed out that I didn’t believe respectable professionals would lower themselves to such a cheap stunt and I genuinely believed it to be an oversight on behalf of my team.
Nonetheless the judge ordered I pay for their error. I was not happy about it, but I understood why.
It’s not my mistake but they were representing me.
The second was the late decision to amend wording in my Defence and Counterclaim.
Again, I was unaware that this was an issue as my barrister and lawyer had changed it, sent it to me as matter of course and that was that.
I assumed they were right to do this. After all, they are top London media barristers and solicitors and I have no training in law.
The judge said this should’ve been done earlier. I accept both points.
I am now deciding how I want to move forward with this. But I know myself and when I say ‘enough is enough’, I mean it.
Much of what has happened to me was allowed to happen because I had professional legal representatives.
As a litigant-in-person the game has changed.
In many respects, much of what I wanted to highlight – that of my allegations of being oppressed and harassed for three years & more – has already been aired in open court and is now available in the National Archives.
This is the second judgment. The first judgment described actions towards me as: “Unreasonable and oppressive” and “Unacceptable and oppressive.”
I shall take a moment to ponder what steps I wish to take next.
Again, thank you for all of those who have supported me throughout this. It has been a dark time, the judgment refers briefly to the impact on my health, but I am through the worst and proud that I stood up for what I believe in.
It was preposterous to hear in court that the other side believe I am trying to prove Mr. Hemming is a child abuser.
This is nonsense and I fought this suggestion strongly.
I have never set out to prove that and neither have I said that. No one who has supported me thinks I am doing that, either.
The only thing I wanted to prove was the behaviour that has happened against me as a consequence of making a film about allegations in Parliament and the British establishment.
I feel some vindication that I have done that.
Even though I have been careful in writing this and stuck to what was said in open court or what is in the judgment, I will probably receive more litigation threats. I will decide how to deal with those as and when.
The system is only able to protect me so far. It can intervene (such as it did with Mr. Hemming’s attempted new lawsuit) but it cannot stop people drawing up their own lawsuits in the first place. Well, up to a point.
That said, I can react differently moving forward as I do not have a legal team that has to abide by their regulatory body (SRA) while those drawing up their own lawsuits do not.
I urge people to read the judgment, it makes for interesting reading and is extremely illuminating as to what an independent freelance journalist has to deal with in the course of her work.
Even though I remain litigant-in-person I need to continue raising funds to settle any outstanding issues.
I thank everyone who has supported me throughout. YOU ARE TREMENDOUS!
The full judgment is below.
My case is scheduled for a two-day hearing in the High Court, London, on October 17 and October 18, 2023 in Hemming vs Poulton.
I am representing myself. This is the first time ever.
There are a number of important reasons for this and all will be explained at the appropriate point.
Thank you to so many kind, generous and able people who have supported me throughout this.
However you have supported me, it all counts. It has got me here.
Literally can't believe this journey. It's notable in my lifetime. None of this is by accident.
"There is no story without struggle," - Afeni Shakur
Love you. Thank you.
UPDATE: Five days after the deadline noted in my last entry (below this entry and dated Monday, August 21, 2023), ex-MP John Hemming has informed me that he has made representation to the High Court and intends to pursue the action against me in one form or another.
This is an interesting development and I must be careful what I say here so as not to interfere with the due process.
Let's just say, for now, that I am looking forward to seeing how this progresses.
I want to assure my brilliant supporters that I am not fazed, I've experienced 3 years of litigation and know what I am dealing with now. Thank God. I am ready and willing to robustly challenge both existing and any future claims from Mr. Hemming.
Date set for our next hearing: High Court, London, October 17 and 18, 2023.
Again, thank you to my supporters, you are here with me every step of the way - in a multitude of forms and they all count - and I don’t take any of that for granted. Forward. X
Today marks three years since ex-MP John Hemming - and his friend and colleague, Samuel Collingwood-Smith - began litigating against me.
The first lawsuit from Mr. Hemming, which is still ongoing, claimed I had defamed him. I maintain I did not.
In turn, I have a harassment claim against Mr. Smith and Mr. Hemming.The stamped Order gave Mr. Hemming until last Friday, August 18th, to respond to the ruling (known as a ‘stay’) should he wish to pursue this new lawsuit against me.
The deadline passed. No response was forthcoming. (See update above dated: August 24, 2023).
At this stage, Mr. Hemming’s newest lawsuit - this one regarding my film ‘Paedophiles in Parliament (2018)' - will not proceed.
This is fantastic news, on a number of important fronts, and without wishing to prejudice live proceedings I will save that explanation for another day.
As always, I want to thank everyone who has supported my journey, I simply could not have got through this legal system without you. You are priceless and I appreciate you dearly.
I said I would keep my funders updated and that is what I shall do.
My 'failure' to agree to a settlement in Hemming vs Poulton has been followed by another lawsuit from ex-MP John Hemming who has now filed a GDPR claim against my 2018 film 'Paedophiles in Parliament'.
If people can't see what is happening to me I don't know what to tell you.
Please support my Fighting Fund and thank you to everyone who already has. Truth will out.
For almost 3 years I've suffered litigation Hell.
A High Court judge described some actions towards me as: “unreasonable & oppressive.”
A PDF of that Judgement is below at the entry dated June 11, 2021.
The case continues.
I’ve been litigated into silence, under advice, and it’s made me ill.
I believe that the best disinfectant is sunlight. Here's a legal update.
I've just had another attempt to settle this lawsuit with Mr. Hemming and Mr. Smith, as requested.
Failure to settle was followed by two new baseless legal claims against me, from parties involved with them.
On the same day as the two legal threats were sent to me, an approach was made, behind my back, to someone who has funded me and whom is a witness for my case. This, of course, is deeply problematic.
I cannot say more at this point as it pertains to a live case, but surely people can see what is happening to me. I hope so.
With the knowledge of my lawyers, I attempted to negotiate this recent settlement myself.
This was to save public funds for other areas of the litigation, if necessary.
I have now taken my lawyers, Simons Muirhead and Burton, off the record temporarily.
This is to re-direct (to me) the frequent unsolicited correspondence, that my lawyers HAD to read (and then charge me, obviously) - whether it directly had to do with the live case or not - and because they are regulated to do so.
The people behind the majority of the correspondence are not regulated and it costs them little to send.
It has cost 10s of thousands for lawyers to respond on my behalf. If they hadn't I'd be in a truly bad place by now.
See my video of March 2023 for more details about this – link below.
I decided to take my lawyers off-record to halt the depletion of my funds, to stop accruing bills and in order to save for more pressing matters EG: the next court hearing in Hemming vs Poulton in the High Court on October 17 and 18, 2023 with Mr. Justice Nicklin, as well as dealing with any other issues in the meantime.
Regarding Hemming vs Poulton entries on this page...I have only written about major events in the case on this Fighting Fund page, mostly because almost every entry result in a legal threat to my lawyers - which costs more money, drains my legal fund even more.
It has forced me into silence but that impacts my ability to protect myself and it stops today.
The legal process promises open transparency and, within the bounds of that, it is absolutely right that I update this page and give people an insight into what happens that is appropriate to this case and may impact this case.
The reality is, I must be able to protect myself and have faith that eventually the fullness of it will be seen in open court.
So, from now on, I shall include more relevant information here of what is happening, so people can see what I must endure and how it’s a damn miracle that I’m still standing.
If you are able, I still need financial support for the next hearing, another threatened application & with more threats in the works.
At the top of the page is my Fighting Fund details.
For obvious reasons I can’t trust Go Fund Me (or any open funding system) because I can guarantee that it will be closed.
Most people know the problems with these sites by now.
Therefore, I have no choice but to have a private FF.
All money goes into a unique and separate FF account and there will be full transparency of finances at the end of litigation.
Thank you to everyone who has helped me so far. It means the world.
I literally would not have been able to defend myself to this point and at a time when I was overwhelmed.
What I have experienced for almost three years is detrimental to me, my life and my work and I will no longer suffer it in silence.
I need the type of protection that only light can bring.
"The Claimant (Smith) maintains the 17.10 e-mail is “without prejudice” and so inadmissible. The Defendants (Butt) dispute this." (Para 3 judgment below).
7. The Claimant replied at 18.29 marking his e-mail “without prejudice”. He acknowledges Mr Butt’s e-mail and the removal of the video but comments that this “only mitigates the damages. I can still sue you for the original version as well as your accomplice, Sonia”.
“Sonia” is Sonia Poulton, the former Second Defendant in this case. The letter goes on to suggest that Ms Poulton was likely to be “bankrupted” in the context of other litigation so the Claimant felt he need not personally take up any action [by implication for the video] against her. However, the Claimant “reserve[ed] the right to issue my claim later, for example after a more expanse Pre-action Letter”. There is then gratuitous comment about the other litigation between Ms Poulton and a Third Party.
8. Mr Hirst describes the Claimant’s 18.29 reply as a “potential concession” in that the Claimant was indicating that he might not sue Sonia Poulton and not issue his claim straight away. Mr Hirst realistically describes references to chances of settlement between Ms Poulton and a third party in other litigation having slipped away as mere “ruminating”. Accordingly, he submits, the Claimant had conceded the without prejudice nature of “the exchange and made admissions against his interest, not least by entertaining the prospect of settlement”.
First of all - THANK YOU for all your kind messages and amazing support, emotional and financial - I am truly grateful for the help I have received.
This is an update regarding a court hearing at the Royal Courts of Justice in London yesterday re: Hemming vs Poulton.
The hearing was adjourned but there were a number of issues that I shall address here not only because this is a matter of public interest (ex-MP vs journalist) but because I have a duty to my supporters to not only update them but to also maintain the importance of open justice.
Mr. Hemming was represented in court by barrister Matthew Hodson (who previously represented him when I won a cost order against Hemming last year).
Mr. Hodson according to his description at Gatehouse Chambers is: "recognised for his expertise in commercial, private client and employment law."
My barrister, Richard Munden of 5RB, is a defamation specialist which is appropriate given Hemming's case against me is for defamation.
From the off, Mr. Hodson sought to mischaracterise me and undermine me describing me as someone who "Holds herself out as a journalist."
What made this description even more absurd was when it became very clear that Mr. Hodson's argument was based on me being an actual journalist - and the responsibilities that accompany that.
His argument was disjointed and did not reflect the reality of who I am and what I stand for.
I was of the mind that it had to be corrected in open court that I am, indeed, a journalist.
Richard Munden addressed this with Master Brown who was presiding.
The Master agreed with Mr. Munden and did not object to the correction.
I have 30 plus years of exposing numerous corruptions & matters of public interest - both in mainstream and alternative media - including TV, radio, print and on the internet - my extensive work speaks for itself.
I am an old hand at being called everything under the sun - and given the work I do and the amount of enemies I make, I accept that - but people cannot be allowed to spread provable misinformation in a court room.
The issue was addressed and I was fine with it.
However, there was one issue that I was not fine with and remain disturbed by.
Prior to yesterday, my legal team had been very clear there should be no form of communication in court between Mr. Hemming and I. Of course I agreed. Any unsolicited approaches from claimant to defendant, and vice versa, can rightly be interpreted as interference and intimidation.
At one stage my team and I were permitted to leave the court room to discuss the hearing, Hemming and Hodson also left the court room for a client-barrister chat.
As we were heading back in, Mr. Hodson approached Richard Munden for a heads-up of what we had decided.
Then, completely unexpectedly, Mr. Hemming, in my opinion, lost control.
He approached me and started to berate and blame me for us being there.
To be clear:
I never pursued Mr. Hemming
I did not call for this hearing - he did
I am not the one attempting to add other people's tweets into this lawsuit
I will not be gaslighted by anyone into believing I am to 'blame' for this
Six people witnessed what happened. I made it clear to Hemming that his behaviour was completely inappropriate as did Muhammad Butt, CEO of Brand New Tube, to Matthew Hodson.
Legal situations can be fraught but inappropriate & emotional behaviour, which I felt was both threatening and intimidating, will not be tolerated and the Court will be made aware for future reference.
It was interesting to note that Samuel Collingwood Smith - Mr. Hemming's friend who has been heavily involved in this civil case against me (frequently describing it in joyful terms such as 'bring it on') was absent from yesterday's proceedings.
Mr. Smith, despite his bravado, had been forced to drop his defamation lawsuit against me although my case against him remains active and growing.
Smith's absence was considered unusual given he enthusiastically publishes words on the internet about his various legal cases (he's not a lawyer or a legal blogger but anyone can represent themselves in a legal case and can also self-publish their own account of that). I later discovered that he already informed the Master that he would not be attending due to a medical appointment.
For the avoidance of doubt, this Fighting Fund update is published due to public interest. My desire is for this information to continue to be aired in open court so the public can be fully aware of what has taken place, and what continues to take place.
Hello All,
I haven’t updated this Fighting Fund page since September 2021.
Mostly because I haven’t had anything major to update about.
Now I do.
As some of you may know (and some of you very kindly contributed to defending me) I have been in litigation with ex-MP John Hemming since he decided to sue me in August 2020.
More details on this page.
Now, Mr. Hemming has decided to substantially update his lawsuit and has applied to add more High Court claims against me, including charges of malice.
Obviously, I cannot go into great detail, but I deny all accusations and can tell you they involve my Fighting Fund and 2 tweets written by other people that did not mention Mr. Hemming and were not about him.
So, I am now facing another costly hearing to oppose John Hemming from suing me for further issues and what appears to be another way to deplete me and my resources.
Therefore, I am appealing once again for help. I cannot do this on my own. I have been blessed to receive the support I have, from both my supporters and Brand New Tube, and I hate having to ask again but I must.
So, if you value my work and you feel able to support me in my legal fight then any amount is appreciated.
Paypal and my bank details are below.
The type of work I do naturally generate enemies and so my Fighting Fund will always remain ongoing.
Thank you.
This Summer I have had an opportunity to reflect on this last year and to assess if I am using my time, energy, attention and the funds donated to me to the best use. I have reached a series of conclusions.
As people know, I have been embroiled in legal disputes for the last year. One of those disputes has now ended. My court case involving Darren Laverty has been settled. It was made plain to me that even if I won at trial - and there was no guarantee of such - I would not be able to recover the significant sums of money spent on legal costs. It was therefore decided to end litigation on both sides. For legal reasons I am not able to comment further but I am truly grateful for the support I have been shown.On Monday this week we had a remote Costs hearing with Deputy Master Bard at the High Court.
This was to determine who pays whose costs for the two recent applications.
A reminder. One application was from ex-MP Mr. John Hemming - who sought summary judgment/strikeout against me (more details in the posts below).
The second application, from Mr. Darren Laverty, who had been added into the counterclaim to sue me and he was seeking costs against me. Mr. Laverty had hoped to sue me for harassment, but all eight incidents were knocked out. Leaving just one point of defamation regarding a James English podcast.
“This attempt to produce a counterclaim was ambitious and over extensive,” commented the Judge.
The upshot, of course, as my barrister, Richard Munden, stated was: “Miss Poulton has been put to serious expense and should be entitled to those costs.”
It turns out the Judge agreed with us.
I am delighted to say BOTH costs order were made in my favour with 85% of my costs for the Hemming v Poulton hearing ordered by the Judge to be repaid to me.
In addition, the Judge found that I had been ‘substantially successful’ in defending myself against Mr. Laverty’s claim and costs were awarded to me there, as well.
Which means that Mr. Laverty is to pay me £6k at this stage and Mr. Hemming £8k plus VAT.
Given that none of this would’ve been possible without my Fighting Fund I first of all must say THANK YOU.
It’s vital to acknowledge what this has meant to me and what your contributions have enabled to happen.
Fact is, I simply could not have defended myself without the help I have been afforded. It has been phenomenal.
At a time when I was struggling to keep my head above water, and also embarrassed to have to admit to people I needed help, I reached out and YOU reached back.
I started this Fighting Fund not just because of this situation but to protect what I do moving forward given the precarious place I find myself in where people are looking to come after me and my work.
I also know it is vital that I am as transparent as possible. Which is difficult when you have a Fighting Fund that is not visible (for reasons explained in posts below).
Here’s the next plan.
Once the money is paid to me, it will go towards legal bills already accrued.
As you read this, I am continuing to raise funds for the next stage of this legal journey. Literally, anything helps and I receive it with much appreciation. Thank you.
It’s taken me a few days to gather my thoughts and fully digest what took place on Monday.
Some of the knowledgeable and wise comments the Judge made about behaviour, language and issues with the legal dispute made for very interesting listening and confirmed what many observers already believed.
And he sent out a warning shot that these legal disputes must not be used to 'oppress'.
The Judge has taken time to go deeply into this claim looking at all sides and at a multitude of documents.
I have a great deal of respect for any judge who is prepared to go into their work with such depth in order to be able to understand context and nuance of arguments involving matters of significant public interest.
I will be careful what I write here because it’s important that this situation goes through the appropriate channels, without any interference, until it reaches satisfactory conclusion.
I also ask anyone reading this to please be aware this is a live case when talking/writing about it.
It’s my experience that some people look for any reason to report me to authorities, even for things that have nothing to do with me. That’s why I turn my comments off on social media because nothing must be allowed to obstruct this process.
So, what I write here is a brief overview rather than a deep dive.
That time will come in the future.
Monday’s hearing was the whole day. We listened as my brilliant barrister, Richard Munden of 5RB, continued to defend me in a way I have rarely heard anyone defend me. (At this point it would be utterly remiss to fail to mention the wonderful support I have received from Brand New Tube and Muhammad Butt who, frankly, is an absolute gem).
Equally, I am utterly grateful to my lawyers, Simons, Muirhead and Burton who brilliantly instructed Mr. Munden.
Of course, as it’s a court hearing, albeit remote, there must be no recording other than by the Judge, and so I reverted to early secretarial days and touch typed at high speed as the hearing progressed. (I didn’t manage to get to my personal best of 120 wpm but it wasn’t through lack of trying).
I digress.
I am learning so much about law, about justice - and they are not always the same thing - about the insanity of humanity, frankly.
In this case, there are a number of troubling issues that are capable of impacting more than me and people should be aware of them.
The reality is, litigation is not for the faint-hearted but when you receive acknowledgement and a sense of justice, it is like a soother to the soul. That is how I feel about what happened on Monday. I am humbled to be the recipient of it.
Thank you for making that possible.
VIDEO: https://brandnewtube.com/watch/zK5lPSyEeoBfSOn
Hello All,
Just a brief update. First of all, thank you once again for continuing to support my Fighting Fund. It really means the world to me.
I have found myself in a tricky place where I daren't have a public fund (it will be attacked, my Fighting Fund is already under pressure from some quarters) and so I am unable to keep people updated with what we have in terms of funds coming in.
Usually, it's the funds visibly growing that can spur people on to donate. Unfortunately, we live in a world where it is so easy to get your funding shut down and, given the evidence we have of what is being done against me, a public Go Fund Me would be the first thing to be attacked.
So, it is, that I have to keep my funding private. Certainly, for the time being.
I don't need to tell people that legal assistance is expensive so our fund is ongoing and any amount is appreciated.
We have another court hearing on Monday and I will update here ASAP.
Here's a video I did covering the recent judgment https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vgQbkQEC2M8
Again, I appreciate your support greatly. The financial support, the emotional support and the psychological support.
I didn't ask for this experience but, seeing as it's here, I am so unbelievably relieved that people have come out to show me what my work means. Thank you, dearly, I simply could not have done this without you. Have a wonderful weekend.
June 11, 2021
'Judgment Day'
My Friends (and even my enemies) –
The High Court has handed down judgment today in Hemming vs Poulton and I am delighted to say that Ex-Liberal Democrat MP John Hemming has been refused Summary Judgment/Strikeout. We proceed to trial.
My magnificent barrister, Richard Munden of 5RB, defeated the Claimant’s application and emerged victorious from the Hearing on April 30, 2021.
As those in attendance at the virtual hearing can attest, Richard is incredibly skilled and gifted at his work. It’s practically art.
There are not enough words of appreciation in the English language for me to adequately describe how I feel about the legal team I have been blessed with.
Who, incidentally, has expanded to include Jeffrey Smele and Andrew Wheelhouse of Simons Muirhead and Burton, my lawyers, who are now instructing Mr. Munden.
It follows, then, before I say anymore I must thank everyone who has helped me get to this point. I am fairly certain I would be looking at a completely different outcome today if I had not had the good fortune of such kindness and generosity from people.
Many are people I don’t know and have never met but who have shown me faith, love, support and trust to enable me to be able to summon the type of help that makes a real difference in situations like this.
I knew Richard Munden was absolutely speaking for me - and for people who support me - when he talked at the hearing about the importance of our Society being able to talk about allegations of child abuse and particularly when it pertains to people in positions of power. Of which the Judge agreed.
So, as I say, we are heading to trial.
I always believed we should. I didn't start this action but seeing as it arrived on my plate I have no alternative but to deal with it.
Fact is, we’re talking about a former MP (whose Twitter image says ‘JohnHemming4MP’ so it’s fair to assume he hopes to re-enter politics and therefore influence the public arena again) and me, a journalist & broadcaster who works in the public interest.
In his application, Mr. Hemming wanted:
1. Summary judgement of his defamation case against me. (Translation: for the hearing to find I had libelled him and award him damages without a full trial).
He further wanted:
2. My harassment claim against him to be struck out either partially or completely. (Translation: for the Judge to remove him from my harassment counterclaim and leave his two associates behind, or to get rid of my harassment claim against all three of them completely).
Both failed.
The judgment is available to view in PDF at the bottom of this segment.
I ask that you take time to read it, if you are able, it is insightful of what has been happening over the last eight months – and more.
It only tells part of the story because, as explained, this was Mr. Hemming’s application and therefore the judgment only covers the allegations of harassment against him. There is much more to be explored at full trial.
But this is not just about an ex-MP and a journalist – it is more than that.
This covers a multitude of issues including: publishing on You Tube and other video-sharing platforms (who owns what, who is responsible for what), the role of politicians and journalists in public life, the importance of being able to discuss child abuse allegations in the British Establishment, inappropriate litigation and what may or may not constitute harassment.
For ease of reference, the judgment covers eight issues which were under consideration (including my harassment claim):
The meaning of the words I spoke and which Mr. Hemming took exception to
Who is responsible for ‘the extent of publication’?
Has it caused serious harm?
Is it the truth?
Or an opinion?
Is it in the public interest?
Were Mr. Hemming’s data protection rights breached by being mentioned in a podcast?
All questions that people should consider more in this age when we can publish our own work.
The judgment refers throughout to my 2018 documentary ‘Paedophiles in Parliament’ – in which Mr. Hemming is featured - although the film is not what I am being sued for.
Mr. Hemming’s libel case against me involves a podcast interview I gave to You Tuber Shaun Attwood in 2019 about ‘Paedophiles in Parliament’. A small part, of which, Mr. Attwood asked me about Mr. Hemming.
I was cautious in my response. As the judgment makes clear.
The Judgment supports me:
"I conclude that the Defendant has a real prospect of showing that the words used, taken "as a whole", show that the Defendant was "reporting the story" in a journalistic context, but without actually adopting or endorsing the accusations, and indeed with an express disclaimer of any adoption of Ms Baker's allegations."
Shaun Attwood has not been sued over this podcast.
In considering the application, the Judge read the entire transcript of my podcast with Shaun Attwood (some two and a half hours long!) entitled "Prince Andrew, Epstein, Savile and McCann Part 1: Sonia Poulton - True Crimes Video 59", he said I express myself:
“…forthrightly and with considerable confidence when dealing with the people whose names appear in the title, and with some of the other individuals who form the subject of discussion. I do not comment here on the nature or likely accuracy of all the claims that she makes: suffice it so that many of them would be widely regarded as highly controversial.”
They would indeed and that is because I investigate and talk about what our mainstream/legacy media won’t.
Controversial doesn’t mean untrue. On the contrary, my work is evidence-based.
It is wonderful that a High Court Judge has read what many know to be serious injustices regarding the British Establishment but are forbidden from reporting on for one political reason or another.
The Judgment describes me variously, including that I:
“…considers it important to investigate and report sexual abuse (including paedophilia), and indeed allegations of sexual abuse which she considers may be of substance, so as to ensure that the voices of victims are not silenced, and particularly so where she perceives an issue of holding the powerful to account.”
Mr. Hemming is disputing that such work could be considered ‘journalism’ – and so therefore not subject to certain journalistic exemptions. I shan’t go into detail what I have said privately about that but suffice it to say I do not agree and we will continue to oppose it.
Regarding the issue of whether this is a matter of public interest or not, the judgment states: “The Particulars provided are in my judgment capable of going to both the assertion that the words concerned a matter of public interest, and the belief - and its reasonableness - that publishing them was in the public interest.”
It continues:
“The Defendant has repeatedly put forward her case that this interview and its publication were for the purposes of journalism, and she acknowledges that the Video was to be published, she explains the substantial public interest (such as giving a voice to those who have been abused and holding the powerful to account) which made it necessary for her to speak out on these matters. She has a real prospect of success on all of these.”
The final point under consideration in the judgment is my harassment claim against Mr. Hemming.
Some 23 incidents of harassment are alleged featuring the three men, some individually some together.
The judgment tackles several of the incidences of alleged harassment which included a video made by Samuel Collingwood Smith – who uses the name 'Matthew Hopkins, Witchfinder General' – and which John Hemming “was party to”, an email from Hemming on October 20, 2020 “telling her that she was under police investigation for many offences, including malicious communications over her "apparent attempt to procure the murder of a law graduate who is assisting as my lay advisor" (meaning Samuel Collingwood Smith)..."
The judgment gives several examples of alleged harassment.
As at the hearing, the Judge is particularly alarmed by an email that Mr. Hemming sent to my then solicitor Blake O’Donnell.
“I regard it as at least properly arguable that the matters alleged against the Claimant, taken together, are capable of amounting to a course of conduct of harassment by him, intended (at least in part) to pressure the Defendant into silencing herself, which involved a mixture of threats (in relation to legal proceedings and otherwise), criticisms, and pressure on her legal representatives - and, for the avoidance of doubt, this latter is capable of constituting harassment regardless of whether or not the legal representatives do withdraw. I add that I would not find it hard to attach the label "oppressive and unreasonable" or "oppressive and unacceptable" to the email of 5 November 2020 sent by the Claimant to the Defendant's solicitor, warning about his personal parliamentary aspirations.”
*********************
A further application was heard by the Judge today from Darren Laverty (who I am suing on the counterclaim with allegations of events going back to 2013). Mr. Laverty attempted to sue me on nine different points.
Mr. Laverty has been assisted in his claim by Mr. Smith and supported by Mr. Hemming. That's the three men I am suing in the harassment claim. I echo the judgment here:
"It is apparent that, at any rate in recent years, (Mr. Hemming) and (Samuel Collingwood Smith) and (Darren Laverty) have been in some communication with one another, and have to some extent supported and assisted one another in various activities, not least litigation."
Every one of Mr. Laverty's claims of harassment were thrown out (variously described by the judge as 'ridiculous' and more, including the idea that I can be responsible for the actions of a newspaper). One claim survived the cull (an interview in which I did not name him), that remained. This was expected. I had been made aware at the outset that it would be highly unusual if Mr. Laverty would not be allowed into the claim given I am suing him.
Regardless, we expected all this. Today is still a great day and no amount of actions will distract from that.
Certainly there will be people over the coming days and weeks who will seek to distort this judgment, but it’s unequivocal.
This is a resounding success for my wonderful team, you amazing funders, the brilliant BNT (and in particular Mr. Muhammad Butt who has supported me throughout), for the public interest and for the importance of being able to discuss issues beyond one man and one woman. This involves Establishment politics, media and law. We must be allowed to fully and transparently tackle these issues and this judgment supports that in no small way.
I appreciate your continued support, I literally cannot do this without you. Thank you.
Over the last few months I have referred to ‘invisible hands’ and that is what I have been experiencing.
Here is one example that I wish to address.
Earlier this year, I was alerted that I had, in error, said the first names of two children (from a case a few years back) in a podcast with Shaun Attwood contrary to reporting restrictions.
I gave a voluntary interview to the police about it – during which time I was commended in front of two witnesses for my work to do with child safeguarding – and made my position clear.
That was over two months ago and we’ve heard nothing since. Which doesn’t mean we won’t but I felt the need to say this because my enemies want to use this one incident, in 30 years of journalism, to stop me doing what I do: raising attention to serious matters of public interest. I will fight that tooth and nail because my reputation is worth defending.
I want to thank Muhammad Butt of BNT for paying for that criminal defence for the interview. I didn't use the Fighting Fund for it, although I have a feeling if I asked my supporters they would be more than happy for me to do so. Maybe not all, but some certainly would once the full details were known. And the FULL DETAILS are very interesting, and important, indeed.
Either way, no money from my Fighting Fund was used for that purpose.
I feel the need to clarify this issue. I won't address everything that is said about me but this particular thing I need to.
I will talk more about it at a later stage. It’s a story with many parts and they are not immediately obvious but let’s say there has been inordinate pressure applied with the aim of charging me. My enemies are busy and I know who they are.
I am reminded, in an interesting turn of events, of the adage: "be careful when you set out to destroy your enemy that you don’t, in turn, destroy yourself.”
I can’t believe it’s a week since the High Court hearing regarding my case involving an ex-MP. I’m still shell-shocked by proceedings.
In particular, how much was said in open court about what has happened to me, and those around me including those who hire me and those who legally represent me, by an ex-MP and his associates.
There was the email the ex-MP sent to my former solicitor (and described by the judge as ‘troubling’) which the ex-MP’s own barrister said: “talks about what he can do in terms of adversely affecting prospects” regarding my former solicitor’s political career. There was the issue of my pregnant barrister quitting three hours after she was directly threatened and a video that contained an ‘implicit threat’ to me. And these were just for starters.
Many people tweeting struggled to believe what had been happening regarding me over the last few months.
From my perspective, I felt personally vindicated.
I even felt if the whole proceedings stopped there I would be able to live with it given HOW MUCH was said in open court.
For my part, it’s a weird thing to hear yourself and your work being discussed in the High Court and to be scrutinised to the degree that I heard at the hearing. Mostly, I was happy with it. There were basic things I would’ve corrected but nothing that cannot wait until a full trial.
Fact is, despite how my enemies seek to portray me, I have been reminded by my supporters how proud I am of what I do - and I intend to continue. I just needed some time out first.
I have much more to say about the hearing and I will once the appropriate legal stages are completed. We are currently waiting for the judge – Deputy Master Bard – to give us his decision whether the ex-MP has succeeded in his application.
Which is: 1. To give him summary judgement against me in his claim that I have defamed him and 2. To strike out my harassment counterclaim against him and two of his associates.
As it became clear in the hearing, I have not done the things I have been accused of. Despite the ex-MP taking to Twitter the day after the hearing and continuing to lie that I want to repeat false allegations. I certainly do not and that was not what my brilliant barrister Richard Munden was arguing for. (Who, incidentally, was utterly magnificent to watch such a pro in action. Can't fully articulate how grateful I am to you lovely people who funded such tremendous representation).
The hearing was remote and well-attended. Members of the public had come to me and I passed them to the Court Clerk who arranged access to the meeting. I am so grateful that there were all those witnesses there including journalists who are following events.
Witnesses are important because they notice strange things like the person who was caught filming at the outset (despite it being Contempt of Court to do so) and such things like the ex-MPs barrister apparently using 'Alexa' to answer questions. We all heard that because the voice sparked into life during proceedings much to the concern of the judge and those present.
The implications of all this and more to be explored fully at a later date. But, for now, here are some of the other things we took a way.
The Judge made it clear throughout that there were issues arising from both the claim and counter claim that were unsuitable for summary judgement and strike out and, in fact, he told us at the end of the hearing that he ‘was minded’ to give us his judgement there and then and give us the reasons why later. He asked our legal representatives to consult with us about what we would prefer.
Turned out it was one of the few things that the ex-MP and I agree on and we both chose to have the answer and reasons at the same time. Deputy Master Bard said it would be 2-3 weeks.
So, for now, this update is more of a ‘hello, I survived that and my mind has been blown by what I have witnessed and experienced’.
I also want to continue to send thanks to everyone who has helped me by donating, by sending supportive words, by posting public support, by tweeting (Object! – the campaign group – live tweeted the hearing all day in a stunning and committed fashion), by being at the hearing, by reporting on it and having the details be known. All of it helps a person when they have felt under siege.
Throughout this dispute, my opponents have tried to intimidate me with the fact that the ex-MP is a millionaire. I have been repeatedly warned to ‘give up’ ‘quit’ or be ‘overwhelmed’ due to my lack of funds. They told me this in blogs, they told me this in videos and they told me this in emails.
In fact, at the hearing, the ex-MP’s barrister tried to use my Fighting Fund - the one many of you donated to - against me. (I was shocked. Not). He said it was a campaign based on the truth - which was apparently problematic. Well, yeah, duh. That’s our thing around here. As much of an issue as it may be to some.
To be clear, my Fighting Fund is not – and never was – just about this current case. I explained at the beginning that it was about establishing a legal fund that would protect me as my work tackling injustices became even more well-known, my enemies became even more powerful and what I stand for became even more troubling for some people.
So, yes, so much more to say. It was a truly eventful hearing including the judge making clear that he had issues with the ex-MP emailing him at 5.30am on the morning of the hearing with videos and irrelevant quotes about me. (“Not an altogether desirable course of action”). Moves like that don’t impress judges and it tells the rest of us so much more about the people involved.
So, thank you all. I appreciate you for getting me this far. My fund is ongoing. Details are below. As soon as news comes through about the judge's decision, I will update you. Have a great day!
What an experience and a journey this is.
In recent times, I’ve seen some of the worst of humanity and some of the best.
When I launched my Fighting Fund at the start of this month (see post below), I did it with great fear and trepidation.
To make such personally sensitive issues so public, was hard to do. It made me feel vulnerable.
And you know what?
I’m glad I did it. The response has been amazing. It touched me deeply - and that has empowered me.
I really needed that strength and particularly given all the constant moving parts that are going on around me and involving me.
Here's one example.
This Friday I have a remote hearing. It is in the High Court and is open to the public.
An ex-MP is suing me for defamation (which I deny) and I, in turn, am countersuing him for harassment - and two of his associates, too.
The ex-MP, who will be representing the Lib-Dems at the next election, hopes to be returned to Parliament.
It is his desire that we don’t have a full court trial regarding our litigation.
His wish, and which we are opposing this Friday, is to give him a summary judgement and to also strikeout my harassment claim.
Of course I am opposing it all.
I believe this is a matter of public interest and requires a full trial so that the facts can be fully examined.
As an ex-MP, with the aim of being an MP again, and, I, as a journalist who reports on corruption and abuse within the British Establishment, I can’t see how it can’t be in the public interest not to have a full trial involving two people who are in the public eye. That is transparency and we need that more than ever these days.
But these things are not up to me.
All we can do is the best we can - and trust that whatever the outcome, I am exactly where I am meant to be.
Now here’s the great stuff. That Fighting Fund I launched, and to which many of you were able to respond....
Well, thank you. I mean that with bells on.
It has changed so much for me, including much that I can’t even talk about right now - but I will.
But it means the Sun, Moon, Earth and Stars to me. And anything else of great worth you might want to fling in.
I’m a ‘jobbing journalist’. My income comes in and it goes straight back out again.
I have not become financially wealthy from doing my work and that is fine by me. It is not my priority to have excess money.
The only thing about money is you are forced to realise the importance of it when your problem is one that money can help to resolve. Such as, for example, being able to secure fantastic representation.
I’ve had the absolute pleasure of being able to take guidance from Richard Munden of 5RB who will be representing me at the hearing. To be clear. When it comes to barristers - and particularly defamation, harassment and data – 5RB is right there at the top of the legal food chain. Including representing JK Rowling, Meghan Markle, Wayne Rooney and so many others.
And Richard, in such a short period of time, has gone above and beyond to assist me. I feel blessed and appreciative.
That level of expertise, given everything that has been going on around me, is the type of representation I need.
So much to say, so much that has to be held off for now.
But somethings are vital to say...my gratitude for the financial donations, the wonderful emails, messages, tweets and inbox messages is beyond mere words.
People coming together to show me what my work means is one of the most heartwarming experiences I’ve had in years.
It actually gave me light when much around me seemed troublingly dark and sinister. Thank you, thank you, thank you.
My Fighting Fund is ongoing because it has to be.
If I’ve learnt anything over the last few months it’s that if you are to be in with even a winning shout of justice, you have to find a way to fund it. I refused to launch a crowdfunder, or similar, because as previously explained it would certainly be attacked and probably closed down.
Barclays
Account No. 03215652
Sort Code 20-25-25
The IBAN is: GB64 BUKB 20252503215652When it comes to support, I must again say thank you to Brand New Tube who have been incredible.
I have done two seasons of my Friday night livestream - The Raw Report - produced by them and their kindness and support in this has been brilliant. Beyond brilliant. Out of this World. I love those people and will repay their kindness and support.
And then there is you. Helping me out. In all sorts of ways. From financial, physical and material to psychological and emotional.
Stuff like that keeps people going. Thank you, dearly.
Hello –
As many know, I have temporarily pulled back from my journalistic and broadcasting work.
This is primarily for two reasons:
1. Because I am currently being sued by two men (including an ex-MP) and I am suing three men for harassment (the ex-MP on a counterclaim with two associates included) and I need time to prepare.
2. Because of the stress caused to my health.
This post is not about the current cases because they are live proceedings and I do not wish to harm that in any way.
I want to proceed to full trial so the truth may be heard.
This page is about reaching out to protect myself and the work I do in the long term.
It is about establishing a Fighting Fund to protect and defend me over the coming years.
I have to be careful what I write, but it is a fact that some of my enemies - and I have quite a few these days - are relentlessly targeting me. I am watched 24-7. This is not an exaggeration but a frightening reality.
It is scary and creepy and the police are failing to protect me from those who have expressed an intention to cause harm to me.
Even with evidence I have been left vulnerable and forced to protect myself.
The facts behind these words will become evident over the coming weeks and months.
If you feel inclined to contribute, please do so above. Any amount helps and is appreciated.
More of what has been going on...
It is not just the police I am repeatedly reported to, but to private individuals and their advisors.
A number of complaints have been sent to Carter Ruck, for one example.
Carter Ruck, for those who don’t know, is the powerful UK libel lawyers who famously represent Kate and Gerry McCann.
My enemies work hard contacting anyone they feel may have an interest in suing and pursuing me at home and abroad.
They contact my livestream guests and smear me with the aim of having people pull out.
They contact people who have hired me and they lie and threaten them into dropping me.
The desperation to harm me - and in a multitude of ways - is obvious to all who have come back to tell me what has happened behind my back. It has gone on for too long and it must stop. I am now prepared to fully fight back.
It has been an onslaught - mental, emotional and physical - but I am still here.
I have been supported throughout the current legal challenge by the remarkable people at Brand New Tube, I am overwhelmed by what they have done for me. I have worked with them for less than a year but they have shown more loyalty than companies I have worked with for a decade.
BNT is a young, British-based video sharing platform that was launched in May 2020 with the express aim of giving a voice to those who were denied such by Big Tech - and particularly by the totalitarian You Tube.
BNT launched and the development was underway when they approached me to co-host a weekly livestream – and then it all kicked off.
Some of my enemies - aware that I had found a new platform - targeted BNT, too.
In the last few months BNT have been to hell and back.
All of it will come out in due course.
BNT is made up of individuals who have put themselves on the line.
I can’t thank them enough. They have proven to be unique in the cutthroat media world I inhabit.
They are unusual in this and the platform must be protected.
I am proud of The Raw Report – our Friday night livestream on Brand New Tube.
We have just completed the second series and the buzz grows week on week.
Our guests are engaging, varied and come from all walks of life from Hollywood actors to activists campaigning to protect brutalised young people. It’s about people who put their heads above parapets. Regardless of the personal cost.
I believe there is nothing out there like it and we will continue to develop it – despite obstacles aimed to stop us.
For three decades I have been on television and radio but, as I became increasingly questioning of mainstream agendas and narratives, I have found myself at odds with those who run mainstream media.
To stay in mainstream media you must not rock the boat. You must conform regardless. I can’t do that. I was made to rock boats. Besides, staying in mainstream media is not my goal – telling the truth is.
The type of journalism I do is not a money spinner. I’ve not grown rich from this and neither do I desire to.
I’m not in this for the money or for popularity or social media likes. My work means something to me.
I do not create clickbait content or seek to glorify survivors of sex abuse or to make money off the back of misery.
I do my work because I hope to even up the odds for people who routinely do not have a voice.
But it is my lack of funds to defend myself that my growing list of enemies hope will deny me justice.
I will fight tooth and nail not to fall into that trap.
In 2021 telling the truth as a journalist is an occupational hazard that many now choose to avoid. Not me. I can’t.
I am proud to have stuck my neck out over the years about many topics including the contaminated blood scandal, cruel welfare reforms, dismantling of the NHS, establishment corruption, child abuse.
And, as many know, I have also been prepared to challenge the big stories be that the disappearance of Madeleine McCann or investigating the rumours of paedophiles within the British Establishment.
(Which, while I’m on it, please seek out and download my documentaries before they are subject to further attack and possible deletion. There is an ongoing campaign to close my You Tube channel which contains them.
Most notably ‘The McCanns and the Police’, ‘Madeleine McCann: Public Relations & Saving Reputations’, ‘Paedophiles in Parliament 2018’, ‘Drag Queen Story Hour: Child Grooming in Plain Sight?’, ‘UK Politics: Did a Paedophile Influence Children’s Policies?’ ‘The Business of Cancer’ and more).
People sometimes say to me “I don’t agree with you on everything, but I agree with you about this.”
Whatever ‘this’ is, it’s enough. We don’t have to agree on everything; indeed it would be slightly creepy if we did, but as long as we agree on the important things then that’s enough.
Sometimes I make errors, I’m human but I am quick to clear them up when there is proof that I am wrong. Unfortunately, others seek to punish me in disproportionate ways and to manipulate circumstances to do so.
A FIGHTING FUND
I have found myself in a place where multiple things are happening and are designed to harm and distress me.
The extent of behind-the-scenes manipulations mean that not only would I be unable to carry on my journalistic work but my word would count for little. Just as some want it.
Yes there really are people out there, some in powerful organisations, who want to silence and discredit me.
And you know why? Because my reputation is too good for their liking. They fear that people listen to me.
The reality is my life and work have become hazardous and I need an ongoing fighting fund just to survive it.
It’s not in my nature to ask for help, I am particularly bad at it. But needs must.
I worry about the implications of public contributions knowing my enemies will try to use it against me, but I can’t care what people who want to harm me think given that their stated aims are to bankrupt me, see me imprisoned and destroy my good reputation.
The reality is I’ve reached a place where I have no alternative.
As my name has become more synonymous with fighting against injustices, my enemies have become more powerful and embedded within the British Establishment. Not all. Some are merely foot soldiers, but dangerous and meddling ones.
This is where you may come in...
What I am facing is not a fight I can take on alone, I need to reach out to those who value what I do.
This is a request in two parts.
1. A Fighting Fund
2. Your Words of Support
This Fighting Fund started because a very kind supporter emailed me and insisted I give her my account details so she could contribute to my legal fees. I was reluctant. Nonetheless, I admitted to her I needed help and she generously did just that.
It means the world to me. But not everyone can afford to do that and neither should anyone feel any pressure to do so.
So, only contribute if: 1. You can afford to and, 2. Because you believe I deserve your support.
I will not start a Go Fund Me or anything similar because my enemies will fight to close it down, this is the reality.
Above you will find a link to my bank account (preferable) and PayPal account.
Which brings me to Point 2. Your Words of Support
Over the years I have received a significant volume of correspondence from people who have thanked me for covering their story, for helping them to better understand a situation they have found themselves in, or in shedding light on issues they seek to know more about.
I need people to do that now. I am here reaching out to you and saying if there was ever a time to protect my good name – and let it be known what I have done – it is now.
So, if you have a nice word to say about me and would be prepared for me to present as a series of statements (when needed) please do so and send to soniapoulton@sky.com
This is a fight for my survival and I will do everything I can.
Yes, it’s that serious.
I'm sorry to be so vague about what is happening but it will soon become apparent why the need to be careful.
This is unprecedented for me but then unprecedented times require unprecedented measures.
I am under no illusion that 2021 is the year that ‘they’ have come for me. And I need help.
I am prepared to break the habit of a lifetime to reach out for it.
Thank you.
Sonia Poulton
April 6, 2021