John Alexander Melvin Hemming v Sonia Vanessa Poulton
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mrs Justice Hill,Mrs Justice Hill DBE |
| Judgment Date | 24 November 2023 |
| Neutral Citation | [2023] EWHC 3001 (KB) |
| Court | King's Bench Division |
| Docket Number | Case Nos: QB-2020-003558 |
and
and
[2023] EWHC 3001 (KB)
Mrs Justice Hill DBE
Case Nos: QB-2020-003558
and: KB-2023-002707
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
KING'S BENCH DIVISION
MEDIA AND COMMUNICATIONS LIST
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Matthew Hodson (instructed on a Direct Access basis) for the Claimant
The Defendant, Third Party and Fourth Party appeared in person
Hearing dates: 17–18 October 2023
Written submissions: 22–23 November 2023
Approved Judgment
This judgment was handed down remotely at 11.00am on 24/11/23 by circulation to the parties or their representatives by e-mail and by release to the National Archives.
Introduction
The Claimant was the UK Member of Parliament for Birmingham Yardley from 2005–2015 and is currently a business person. The Defendant is a freelance journalist and broadcaster.
In case number QB-2020-003558 (“the QB claim”), the Claimant brings defamation and data protection claims against the Defendant seeking damages (including aggravated damages) and an injunction. The claims relate to statements made by the Defendant during the course of an interview published on 19 November 2019 (“Publication 1”).
The Third Party runs a website on which he goes by the name ‘Matthew Hopkins, the Witchfinder General’. The Third and Fourth Parties are said to be friends with each other and with the Claimant. The Third Party has legal qualifications and has been involved in litigation on his own behalf and helping others. The Defendant's case is that the Fourth Party has harassed her through Twitter and other means, leading to a police investigation.
The Defendant denies liability in the QB claim and has brought a counterclaim against the Claimant, as well as the Third and Fourth Parties, seeking damages and injunctive relief for harassment contrary to the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 (“the PHA 1997”).
The Fourth Party counterclaimed against the Defendant for defamation. Proceedings between the Defendant and the Fourth Party have been settled.
Applications by the Claimant for summary judgement and/or strike out of the Defence and by the Defendant for permission to amend the Defence and Counterclaim were addressed by Deputy Master Bard in his comprehensive judgement dated 11 June 2021: [2021] EWHC 3863 (KB) (“ Hemming No. 1”). This is my judgment on a series of further interlocutory applications brought by the parties, which were considered at a Case Management Conference (“CMC”) over 17–18 October 2023.
The issues that required determination were as follows:
(1) The Claimant's application dated 15 February 2022 seeking permission to amend the Particulars of Claim (“POC”), including to add new defamation, data protection and harassment claims ( “the First Application”): see [42]–[127] below;
(2) The Claimant's linked application dated 13 July 2022 for an order under the Limitation Act (“the LA”), s.32A to disapply the limitation period as required in respect of the proposed new defamation claims ( “the Second Application”): see [128]–[149] below;
(3) The Defendant's application dated 13 February 2023 seeking permission to re-amend the Defence and Counterclaim, including an application to withdraw an admission under CPR 14.5 ( “the Third Application”): see [150]–[206] below;
(4) The Claimant's application dated 18 August 2023 to lift the stay in KB-2023-002707 (“the KB claim”), a claim by which the Claimant brings a further data protection claim against the Defendant, and for directions as to the future conduct of that claim ( “the Fourth Application”): see [207]–[247] below;
(5) The Defendant's application dated 1 September 2023 and the Fourth Party's cross-application dated 11 September 2023, each seeking injunctive relief and other orders against the other for alleged breaches of their settlement agreement in the QB claim ( “the Fifth and Sixth Applications”): see [248]–[268] below;
(6) The directions required to progress the QB claim to trial: see [269]–[289] below; and
(7) Various issue relating to costs: see [290]–[316] below.
The Claimant was represented by Mr Hodson of counsel, instructed on a Direct Access basis, who provided considerable assistance. The Defendant represented herself though has previously instructed both solicitors and counsel in the proceedings. The Third and Fourth Parties represented themselves.
The factual background
The factual background to the claims was set out in detail in Hemming No. 1 at [6]–[23], to which I gratefully refer.
In summary, the claims arise out of the fact that in around 2014/2015 Esther Baker claimed that she had been raped and sexually assaulted by an MP in Cannock Chase, when she was a young girl. She reported the matters to the police who investigated the allegations, including interviewing the Claimant. The Claimant was not charged with any criminal offences.
Although Ms Baker did not identify the Claimant by name, his case is that she provided enough background information to allow those who wished to investigate further to identify him through “jigsaw identification”. At the conclusion of the police investigation, on 5 September 2017, the Claimant published a ‘ Statement re False allegations from Esther Baker’ on his blog. He was also referenced in two articles published in the Daily Mail and/or on their website on 19 January 2018 and 22 June 2018.
Between 2015 and 2018 the Defendant made a documentary programme called ‘ Paedophiles in Parliament’ (“PIP”). On 2 August 2018 this was published on YouTube. The Claimant took exception to it and began communicating with the Defendant on the day it was published. He complained that she was re-publishing Ms Baker's false allegations about him. The Defendant contended that these were all issues in the public domain and that she was legitimately reporting about them. The Claimant did not issue any claim against the Defendant arising out of PIP at that time: Hemming No. 1 at [7] and [17]–[19].
On 13 September 2018 Ms Baker brought defamation proceedings against the Claimant arising out of the three publications referred to at [11] above. He defended Ms Baker's claim and counterclaimed against her for defamation in relation to a Tweet she had published on 11 November 2017. Further details of this claim and counterclaim can be found in the judgment of Steyn J dated 5 November 2019: Baker v Hemming [2019] EWHC 2950 (QB).
In his counterclaim the Claimant asserted that the natural and ordinary meaning of Ms Baker's Tweet was that he had “raped and sexually assaulted [Ms Baker], then stalked and defamed her to cover it up” and had “committed other rapes and is a serial rapist”. He also asserted that the words bore an innuendo meaning that he had abused her as part of a ritual cult involving Cabinet Ministers, MPS, Lords and Judges: Baker v Hemming at [10]–[14].
By her 5 November 2019 judgment, Steyn J struck out various parts of Ms Baker's claim. She granted the Claimant summary judgment on his counterclaim, in respect of the pleaded natural and ordinary meaning: Baker v Hemming at [87]–[98] and [128(h)].
On 19 November 2019 Steyn J made a final injunction restraining Ms Baker from repeating the allegations that the Claimant “raped or sexually assaulted [her], then stalked and defamed [her] to cover it up” or any words to similar effect. The reasons Steyn J gave for making the injunction included at [1] that Ms Baker had “deliberately chose[n] not to contend that the defamatory allegation was true” and that “the effect of my judgment is that the allegation has been “found to be untrue and defamatory”.
On the same day as the final injunction made by Steyn J, Publication 1 was published. It was a video entitled ‘ Prince Andrew, Epstein, Saville and McCann Part 1: Sonia Poulton – True Crime Podcast 59’ in which the Defendant was interviewed by Shaun Attwood. The video was published on Mr Attwood's YouTube channel and in audio form on Spotify and Stitcher, both worldwide audio streaming services. The Defendant's case is that it was recorded on 3 November 2019.
The Third Party has also been involved in litigation with Ms Baker. He brought a claim against her and another Defendant. The claims were settled. Ms Baker counterclaimed against the Third Party for defamation and harassment. The allegedly defamatory words were said to bear the natural and ordinary meaning that Ms Baker had a mental illness, leading her to make allegations that were not true, were dangerous and may discredit the campaign for real victims and that no attention should be paid to Ms Baker when she made the allegations. The Third Party defended the counterclaim in part on the basis that what he had said was true. On 17 August 2022, Griffiths J granted the Third Party summary judgment on the counterclaim: Smith v Baker [2022] EWHC 2176 (QB) at [64]–[95] and [96(v)].
The Third Party also brought a claim against Muhammed Naeem Butt, for whom the Defendant works in a freelance capacity: Smith v My Media World and Butt (QB-2020-0003936). Mr Butt attended the hearing before me with the Defendant and provided a witness statement in support of her position on the Fourth Application. My understanding is that the Claimant has also brought proceedings against two of Ms Baker's supporters, Graham Wilmer and David Hencke; and that these have settled on terms that Mr Wilmer and Mr Hencke are prohibited from stating that Ms Baker's allegations were true.
There have been further cases involving the parties and their respective supporters. The above summary suffices for the purposes of this judgment.
The procedural history and outline of the claims and counterclaims
On 9 October...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gerard Kelly and Malachi O’Doherty
...journalists, Dr O’Doherty and Miss Edwards, whom Mr Kelly has singled out and pursued for defamation. [68] In Hemming v Poulton [2023] EWHC 3001 (KB), Hill J, in a case which concerned litigation brought by a former Member of Parliament against a freelance journalist and broadcaster, observ......