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

 

Before :

 

DEPUTY HIGH COURT JUDGE SUSIE ALEGRE

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Between :

 

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.”

The Issues

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 11^th July 2024.

The Law on Meaning

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”….”

Meaning

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 3^rd Party and the 4^thParty 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 3^rd Party and the 4^th 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 2^nd 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.

Conclusion

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.

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

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

 

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. 

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.
We have a two-day High Court hearing on October 17th and 18th, 2023 before Hon. Mr. Justice Nicklin and I will update accordingly.

However, as synchronicity would have it, I am updating this legal page today because the last lawsuit claim against me from Mr. Hemming in June this year (see post below this) has been denied by the High Court in London.

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. 

This update concerns a judgment made this week in the High Court, London by Master Thornett.

It involves Muhammad Butt, CEO of Brand New Tube, currently being sued by McKenzie Friend/blogger Samuel Collingwood Smith.

Mr. Butt and our legal team (Richard Munden of 5RB instructed by Simons, Muirhead and Burton) challenged Mr. Smith, and his barrister, over a document that Butt wished to bring in as part of his defence.

"The Claimant (Smith) maintains the 17.10 e-mail is “without prejudice” and so inadmissible. The Defendants (Butt) dispute this." (Para 3 judgment below).

Smith originally sued me as part of this same lawsuit, alongside Mr. Butt, but he dropped me from the claim earlier this year.

I am mentioned in the judgement (link below).

In a separate lawsuit, I am being sued by ex-MP John Hemming and I am counter-suing him & Samuel Collingwood Smith - his longtime friend and associate,.

Information in posts below.

For the avoidance of doubt, my Fighting Fund does not fund the Smith vs Butt lawsuit.

I include this information as an update for the reasons mentioned.

I urge people to read the 9-page judgment.

Mr. Butt and his team were successful in their attempt to have the email included in proceedings.

I reproduce below a couple of paragraphs that directly refer to me.

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”.  

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.