Author Archives: Samuel Collingwood Smith

About Samuel Collingwood Smith

Samuel Collingwood Smith was born in the north of England, but his family moved south early in his life and spent most of his early years in Hertfordshire before attending Queen Mary, University of London, where he studied Economics. Sam currently lives in the southeast of England. Smith was employed as a Labour Party fundraiser in the 2001 General Election, and as a Labour Party Organiser in the 2005 General Election. In 2005 Smith was elected as a Borough Councillor and served for 3 years until 2008. In 2009 Smith changed sides to the Conservative party citing division within Labour ranks, Labour broken promises and Conservative improvements to local services. In 2012 Smith started to study a Graduate Diploma in Law, passing in 2014. Smith then moved on to studying a Master's Degree in Law combined with an LPC, receiving an LL.M LPC (with Commendation) in January 2017. During his study, Smith assisted several individuals in high profile court cases as a McKenzie Friend - in one case being praised by Parliamentary petition for his charitable work and legal skills. Smith is also the author of this blog, Matthew Hopkins News, that deals with case law around Family and Mental Capacity issues. The blog also opposes online drama and abuse and criticises extreme-left politicians.

Esther Baker Crowdfunding Page Taken Down Over False Statements

Posted on by
3

Defended banner for articles defended in court

[UPDATE – 17 August 2022. Esther Baker sued over this article in High Court Case QB-2020-001013. She lost. The court granted both summary judgement and strike-out finding the claim had no realistic prospect of success. No other person mentioned sued and the time limit has elapsed. Judgement here. My follow-up article here. This article has been added to the “DEFENDED!” category and readers may rely on it.]

EstherBaker

Esther Baker has made numerous allegations of sexual abuse. Now she is begging for money for a court case – but she has failed to tell backers the whole story.

Esther Baker’s crowdsourcing page has been taken down after Simpson Millar solicitors (whose name was placed on the page without their authorisation) asked for their name to be removed. These days, crowdsourcing is everywhere. Whether it is for a new type of watch, a security camera with a battery that lasts a year or a revolutionary type of food storage, there is something for everyone. Crowdsourcing has its downsides though, with many campaigns that do not deliver or which even turn out to be fraudulent, such as the Kickstarter for board game, “The Doom that Came to Atlantic City” (archive). Last week Esther Baker, an unsubstantiated rape accuser, began a campaign on Crowdjustice.com. She claims that John Hemming, the man she accused of rape, has defamed her by calling her a liar and is seeking funds to sue for defamation. She is entitled to her day in court. However, Baker’s campaign left out many key facts about the case. If backers knew the whole truth, would they be so keen to contribute?

Esther Baker’s campaign is aimed at raising money from well meaning members of the public who are passionate about achieving justice. However, the campaign (which is down for the time being) was at best misleading and at worst actionable misrepresentation, leaving out key facts about Baker’s mental health, the evidence in the case, its current state and her various changes of lawyer. By asking for this money, Baker is inviting backers to spend their money with her instead of with other good causes, so in this article I set out the truth about the case.

CrowdJusticeLogo

Crowd Justice says it helps people fund legal action, but what protections are there for donors against misleading campaigns?

Esther Baker’s campaign as first published opened with the following lines – “My name is Esther Baker, and I am a survivor of childhood sexual abuse, grooming and domestic violence. I suffer mental health conditions as a result of my abuse including severe depression and PTSD”.

Baker claims she is a victim of childhood sexual abuse and grooming, but it is public knowledge that despite extensive police investigation, no one has been convicted. Therefore, Baker’s claim to be a survivor is unproven. In fact, according to the Independent Inquiry on Child Sexual Abuse, there were as many as 11 police officers involved in the investigation. Witness statements were taken from 30 individuals. Ms Baker alone was interviewed for a total of 91½ hours, with the transcripts of those interviews running to 1,081 pages. No one was convicted. No one was even charged.

More importantly, Esther Baker has given an incomplete account regarding her mental health. Baker’s pleadings are available to the public without the Court’s permission under Civil Procedure Rule (CPR) 5.4C. In her campaign she refers to Continue reading →

Share Button

Supreme Court: the US Federal Government Can in Fact Regulate Private Company Editorial

Posted on by
Reply
Earl Warren

Earl Warren, left leaning Supreme Court Justice, ruled in favour of regulating private corporate speech to be fair to all sides.

The recent decision by the Trump administration to collect evidence of political bias at social media companies is to be welcomed. However it has led to gloating on the Left, and concerns on the Right about the legal issues. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution, it is said, prohibits interference by the Federal Government or by Congress. Rubbish! The Supreme Court has already upheld such legislation, and not even the recent, Conservative leaning Supreme Court but the Left-leaning activist Warren Court. I am speaking of course, of the FCC Fairness Doctrine (archive).

The Fairness Doctrine was a rule imposed on early, analog, radio broadcasters as well as television broadcasters. Because there were few radio television channels, they operated as gatekeepers to the national political conversation. As a result, over a number of cases the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) began treating them somewhat like utilities.

The Mayflower Doctrine was a ruling of the FCC in 1941 that radio stations were prohibited from editorialising in matters of news or politics for fear that they would otherwise simply be used to propagandise on behalf of Conservative business owners. It was superceded by the later, ‘Fairness Doctrine’. The rule required that broadcasters dealing with controversial issues present both sides, grant equal time to both sides and give those publicly criticised the opportunity to respond.

Eventually, a company called Red Lion Broadcasting challenged the rule and the litigation made its way to the Supreme Court. Which ruled unanimously in favour of the FCC. The full case name is, Red Lion Broadcasting Company, Incorporated, et al. v. Federal Communications Commission, et al. and the court’s opinion can be found here.

HELD (amongst other things) – The fairness doctrine and its specific manifestations in the personal attack and political editorial rules do not violate the First Amendment.

Continue reading →

Share Button

Jess Phillips MP, Her Outside Earnings … and How to Take Them Away

Posted on by
2

Defended banner for articles defended in court

[UPDATE – 17 August 2022. Esther Baker sued over this article in High Court Case QB-2020-001013. She lost. The court granted both summary judgement and strike-out finding the claim had no realistic prospect of success. No other person mentioned sued and the time limit has elapsed. Judgement here. My follow-up article here. This article has been added to the “DEFENDED!” category and readers may rely on it.]

Official_portrait_of_Jess_Philips

Jess Philips MP (official portrait, CC-BY-SA 3.0 license).

My last article was an exposé of the repugnant female MP Jess Phillips and her irresponsible, exploitative behaviour towards a mentally ill, alleged child abuse victim Esther Baker. As my article explained, there is now ample evidence Baker (who claims to hear voices) has accused the wrong men of rape. Conveniently for Phillips, one of them was her electoral opponent. The court process Esther Baker has initiated, egged on by others, has left Baker with a costs bill likely to be in the region of £12,000. Law enforcement and the public purse have wasted even larger sums. This article gives details and then provides a contacts spreadsheets for any reader who would like to help organise a boycott.

Unlike Baker, Phillips has no money problems. In fact her most recent register of interests (archive) shows a plethora of writing and speaking engagements. It is easy to see why the Corbynites dislike her so – she is hardly a horny-handed son of toil. In the last year Phillips has had numerous writing, speaking and television engagements (including her book) bringing her in around £45,000. She finds time to be Deputy Editor of House Magazine at £2,000 a quarter. All this whilst drawing a full time salary as a Member of Parliament employed by the good people of Birmingham Yardley.

Phillips has an extraordinary number of enemies –

Share Button

Jess Phillips MP, Mark Watts and Who Raped Esther Baker?

Posted on by
6

Defended banner for articles defended in court

[UPDATE – 17 August 2022. Esther Baker sued over this article in High Court Case QB-2020-001013. She lost. The court granted both summary judgement and strike-out finding the claim had no realistic prospect of success. No other person mentioned sued and the time limit has elapsed. Judgement here. My follow-up article here. This article has been added to the “DEFENDED!” category and readers may rely on it.]

Official_portrait_of_Jess_Philips

Jess Philips MP (official portrait, CC-BY-SA 3.0 license).

Who raped Esther Baker? Baker is suing John Hemming for libel, claiming he raped her. He is counter-suing. On 15 April 2019 I sat in the High Court with John Hemming, Barbara Hewson and Richard-Owen Thomas and looked on as Baker, accompanied only by former Exaro Editor Mark Watts, was handed a costs order likely to run to about £12,000. Baker was also ordered to have a psychiatric assessment to be filed at court. During the hearing it was revealed that Baker asserts that she is seriously mentally ill. Politicians and ‘journalists’ such as Labour MP Jess Phillips and former Exaro editor Mark Watts have encouraged Baker’s allegations yet Jess Phillips is not Baker’s MP and never has been. Were Phillips and Watts right to encourage a vulnerable mentally ill woman in making unproven allegations public? Were they right to expose her to the possibility of mental injury from public criticism and controversy? Were they right to expose her to legal risks? Have Watts and Phillips helped Esther Baker … or benefited from her distress?

As my previous article recounted, Esther Baker is suing John Hemming for libel – without legal representation. He is counter-suing. The claim is not yet decided but outcomes so far are have not been good for her. Barrister Barbara Hewson’s excellent article is here for an independent perspective.

Amongst other things, John Hemming alleges Esther Baker’s lawsuit is out of time. Despite regularly insisting on Twitter that the ‘truth’ will be revealed she has point blank refused to particularise the alleged ‘rape’. This led to the judge telling her that Hemming did not know the claim he had to meet – Baker’s pleadings were inadequate. She claims in reply that her lawsuit is not out of time because she was mentally ill and lacked mental capacity to litigate for part of the limitation period.

My earlier article did not cover Esther Baker’s mental health problems, as I wanted to treat the issue sensitively and appropriately in this piece. On Twitter Baker has admitted to being, ‘psychotic’ (archive) and referred to hearing voices. In the publicly available pleadings in her case it is alleged that she suffers from auditory and ‘command’ hallucinations. In simple terms, she hears voices in her head that tell her to do things. Sometimes she obeys.

For a woman in Baker’s position to bring a lawsuit as litigant in person is challenging. Whilst the case is not yet decided, there is now significant evidence on the other side. As the Mail reported (archive) Baker has admitted that she told police her rapist had a curved penis and a birthmark on their back. Hemming has never had either (and there is a photograph of his back exhibited in evidence) but does have a distinguishing characteristic that Baker did not mention in her pleadings. So if Baker was raped at all, there are good reasons a fair minded observer might conclude that it was not Hemming. Now a court will decide.

CreepyJessPhillipsSweetDreams

Jess Phillips eerily wishes Baker ‘sweet’ dreams, a few months after she accused Hemming.

Continue reading →

Share Button

James Vaughan, Nick Long, Joanna Harding and Councillor Fiona Thomson: Welwyn-Hatfield’s Appalling Taxi Team

Posted on by
6
FionaThomson

Conservative Councillor Fiona Thomson has upset taxi drivers and commuters. She presides over the council’s appalling Hackney Carriage (taxi) team.

As a loyal Conservative, I would find it hard to vote for anything else. I can think of few things worse for Welwyn-Hatfield than a Labour-run council. When I was a Labour councillor (before I became a Conservative), the council was just recovering from a Labour administration that took the council £3 million over budget and which Conservative John Dean’s leadership of the council had to rectify. Even so, in my recent interactions with Welwyn-Hatfield’s taxi team they have fallen well short of what I would expect at every level, failing to deal adequately with serious allegations of systemic racism and maladministration.

As we approach the elections, Conservatives hope to rely on the support of small business, such as taxi drivers. In Welwyn-Hatfield unfortunately they are demonstrating outside the council offices (archive). Why? The (Conservative) County council has come up with an ill-conceived plan to move the taxi rank away from the station where it currently rests. The Borough council has been asked to oppose the plans and it is far from clear on where it stands. Conservative Executive Member Fiona Thomson said it would be “inappropriate to comment”. Because alienating a core vote is exactly what we want before local elections.

According to an article in the Welwyn-Hatfield Times, Labour PPC for Welwyn-Hatfield Rosie Newbigging “warned of risks to elderly, frail and disabled people who would have to cross a busy road to get a taxi”. I think Ms Newbigging is ignoring other important groups. What about well-nourished Conservative law bloggers? When I stagger out of the train station full of foie gras and scotch why should I have to walk further? Commuters are an important vote too!

But the controversy is only the tip of the iceberg. I was recently asked to provide pro-bono support to a taxi driver who was being accused of license misconduct. In fairness, he admits to overcharging, albeit he says that it was in error. It is likely this is true as he gave receipts. I did agree to an initial look at the papers. Suspiciously, the council had not sent the driver a transcript of an interview they had with him under caution (under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, usually known as PACE). When I became involved it was only 6 days before the hearing. When the driver emailed the council and consented to a copy being sent to me, council officer Cheryl Bridges claimed she could not give it to me because of “data protection” even whilst admitting to having the consent in front of her.

When I finally received the interview transcript (after further representations) it read like something from Blackadder. The driver had admitted he had charged extra because he had to drive a long way to collect the customer. In reply, Hackney Carriage Officer James Vaughan said this, “So the more vulnerable the customer is the more you can charge them, is that how it works?”. He literally invented an allegation of predation on the spot and out of whole cloth.

The irony is of course that the taxi driver is a vulnerable Muslim migrant with English good enough to run a taxi but not well equipped to protect himself from a jumped up, wannabe-traffic cop like Vaughan. The person who had complained about the driver had produced a witness statement referring to two incidents, one to which there was an independent female witness. The officers had not contacted her. I did. Her evidence points to the driver being a kindly man (if not well educated) dealing with a rude and frightening customer.

Continue reading →

Share Button

Mark Watts: Unparticularised

Posted on by
4
FOIACentreLogo

The logo of the so-called Freedom of Information Act Centre of which Mark Watts is ‘coordinator’.

On Monday, I wrote about the first preliminary hearing in the case of Baker v Hemming. In the hearing, Esther Baker was ordered to rewrite her claim, have a psychiatric assessment and pay costs to be subject to the detailed assessment procedure. At the hearing Baker was unrepresented but assisted by Mark Watts, former Exaro editor, who sat behind her and appeared to assist as a lay advisor. Now he has complained about myself, Barbara Hewson and Simon Just to the judge because we blogged about it.

It is curious that a man who claims to campaign for transparency like Mark Watts, who ‘coordinates’ for the ‘Freedom of Information Act Centre’, is suddenly not-so-keen on information getting out when he is the subject. There are three blogs that Watts complains of. My previous article here, barrister Barbara Hewson’s blog and Real Troll Exposure.

In the United Kingdom, most libel cases (unlike the Family Courts) are open to the public and it is perfectly legal to report on them. Providing the reporting is ‘fair’ and ‘accurate’ it even attracts qualified privilege. Watts’ complaint accuses all three of us of being ‘unfair’. What moved me to write this brief post however, was the fact that his complaint is … unclear. I have no idea why he thinks Barbara and Real Troll Exposure have been unfair. His only comprehensible complaint about my blog is that he is described as a blogger. I do not see how that is harmful to him, and the FOIACentre’s ‘News’ section to me looks like a blog attached to a niche research business.

Put another way his complaint is … inadequately particularised. Much like Esther Baker’s claim in which he advised her. I may be running some articles on Mr Watts in due course but for now I include his complaint below. In the spirit of Freedom of Information, of course.

Continue reading →

Share Button

Baker v Hemming: Esther Baker Ordered to Pay Costs!

Posted on by
7
EstherBaker

Esther Baker has had a bad day in court.

The first interim hearing in Baker v Hemming occurred today, and Esther Baker has been ordered to pay the whole costs of the hearing as well as re-write all of her court pleadings. Furthermore, Hemming has been given leave to commence detailed costs assessment immediately.

Esther Baker is suing John Hemming for libel for saying she lied about her allegations of Rape. Hemming has counterclaimed for libel over a tweet he says is an allegation that he raped her. Hemming had applied to strike out Baker’s claim and her Defence to his counterclaim.

The hearing, which was open to the public, took most of the day with various breaks for advice and production of documents. Hemming was represented by barrister Richard Owen Thomas of 3PB chambers. In Hemming v Wilmer I assisted formally as McKenzie Friend but here I sat with them and provided informal support.

Baker acted in person but was assisted by Mark Watts, former editor of Exaro and currently Coordinator at the Freedom of Information Centre. At the start of the hearing he sat next to her like a McKenzie Friend but after a brief discussion with the judge he sat behind her and provided informal support. Watts accompanied Baker for more-or-less the whole day.

One interesting aspect of the case is the fact that both sides were supported by bloggers. I have been upfront about my support for John Hemming but felt I should make clear the extent of Watts’ support for Baker. Barbara Hewson also attended the hearing as an observer although she was not as closely aligned with any side.

At the start of the hearing Baker applied for an adjournment claiming she now has pro-bono support to amend her pleadings. This was granted, but because her pleadings were clearly deficient she was ordered to pay the costs of the hearing and the amended pleadings. She will be liable for those costs regardless of how the rest of the case proceeds, whatever the outcome. Baker has been given a tight timescale to file amended the pleadings. Baker had sought an initial decision on meaning, but a meaning hearing was not ordered. Baker has also deleted the allegedly defamatory tweet.

Continue reading →

Share Button

Wrecked: Graham Wilmer’s Apology to John Hemming

Posted on by
3
EstherBaker

Esther Baker has made numerous allegations of sexual abuse. Now two of her supporters have entered into restraining agreements in settlements of libel claims against them. Baker is presently under police investigation herself.

Graham Wilmer, Director of the Lantern Project, has humiliatingly apologised to former MP John Hemming as part of the settlement of Hemming’s claim against him for libel and harassment. Hemming was supported by myself and I assisted him before Mr Justice Andrew Baker as McKenzie Friend at an ex-parte hearing on 5th January 2018. Wilmer had backed Esther Baker’s allegations against Hemming and claimed repeatedly that they were true. Now he has entered into a legal agreement never, for the rest of his life, to make any statement that might mean Hemming has committed any crime at all.

The Daily Mail (archive), the Telegraph (archive), the Times, Barthsnotes (archive) and Real Troll Exposure (archive) have published articles about the settlement but there seems to have been some confusion about what the claims were for and what the settlement actually says. So just to be clear –

  1. David Hencke was sued for libel as per my article on that settlement, but Graham Wilmer was sued for Harassment and Libel.
  2. Wilmer agreed to pay nearly all Hemming’s costs – £9,028. Hemming’s costs were very low by the standards of libel cases because he had a pro-bono legal advisor – me. Whilst I am not a solicitor I have an LL.M LPC (Commendation). John had paid a court fee of £3,028 and over £6,000 in various other expenses. Most of this was that I also recommended he seek an opinion from a barrister on a few issues. The barrister, Richard Owen Thomas was extremely helpful and professional and I recommend him.
  3. Wilmer agreed to pay £1,000 as a donation in lieu of damages to Birmingham Children’s Hospital.
  4. Wilmer agreed to apologise.
  5. Wilmer agreed never to make any publication or statement that expressly, by imputation or innuendo conveys the meaning that Hemming is guilty of any crime. This includes specifically the alleged rape of Esther Baker or the crime of Blackmail. This agreement lasts forever.
  6. The order settling the Hencke case states that there is no admission of liability, but the Wilmer order does not.

Fairly obviously, if John had won at a trial, he would have received his costs, damages, a judgement and some form of restraint on Wilmer. In short this agreement is exactly the same as what Hemming would have got on a successful judgement except with a discount on costs and damages for settling early. The letter of apology is below –

Continue reading →

Share Button

Andi Lavery: Hero of Scotland

Posted on by
Reply

The Herald Scotland has named a child abuse victim called Andi Lavery as one of “Scotland’s heroes”, along with others including former rugby player and charity fundraiser Doddie Weir and surgeon Lindsey Chisholm, in an article here (archive) –

“[…] The fight for justice by survivors of historic abuse has already been a long and difficult one – and much of the way, Andi Lavery has been there speaking up not only for himself, but many other victims of abuse by those in the Catholic Church. This year, he finally saw his primary abuser, Father Francis Paul Moore, now aged 82, face justice, and be found guilty of the shocking sexual abuse of three children and sentenced to eight years in prison – after an appeal reduced it from nine years.

Following the original sentencing, Mr Lavery said, “It’s never going to take away the sickening things that have happened He looked me in the eye when he was walking down to the cells and I realised I didn’t fear him anymore. He had nothing but rage towards me which shows he’s not sorry for anything he’s done. Father Moore poisoned my life.” Lavery was the youngest known victim of Fr Moore, being only five years old when he was the victim of abhorrent sexual violence leaving significant injuries. The trial itself was a difficult experience for him. It was, he said, “worse than the abuse itself – an entirely toxic experience”.

Sadly the battle, for him, continues – not just to see abusers imprisoned, but, he says, also to see “those in authority… both repair the catastrophic harm and offer qualified redress and recognition of how the Catholic Church has destroyed my life […]”.

Note – Mr Lavery has seen a draft of and expressly consented to my including the extract in this blog post.

Share Button

Miele: Information Commissioner Investigating after Alleged Disclosure of Complaints About Alan Goodwin

Posted on by
6

The Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA) has many eccentric characters very excited about it. Most of these are harmless, well meaning but a little bit credulous towards conspiracy theories. Some are victims of real abuse, others however, are vile. One exceptionally unpleasant character is the operator of the @Ciabaudo twitter account. MHN can reveal that @Ciabaudo is in fact Alan Goodwin, a British man living in Germany and working for domestic goods manufacturer Miele. Goodwin frequently seems to spend his days churning out tweets expressing his concerns about gays, Jews, Israel and / or alleged Jewish / Israeli / gay paedophiles. When third parties complained to Miele, they believe their personal data was disclosed. Now the UK Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) is investigating.

CiabaudoNeptotistJews1

Alan Goodwin, Miele employee expresses concerns about ‘nepotist’ Jews – by implication in some work context.

David Hencke’s recent humiliation in a libel claim brought by former MP John Hemming has caused great consternation in the ever-shrinking portion of the conspiracy-sphere who are willing to back Esther Baker’s allegations. The difficulty is that for all Esther Baker’s coy hints about the ‘truth’, her claims of abuse have gone nowhere. Baker has alleged extraordinary, cult-like abuse in multiple countries over a period of years. The police took statements from 30 people, with the interviews of Baker alone lasting 91-and-a-half-hours (source). Yet the only outstanding police investigation regarding the ‘historic abuse’ is into allegations against Esther Baker. Even for true believers it is getting a bit passé.

Ms Baker herself admits in public on Twitter to significant mental illnesses including references to auditory hallucinations and home visits from the mental health team, yet even after the police investigation some of her supporters do not appear willing to consider that she may be mistaken about the identity of her abusers or other details.

The only promising bit of excitement is Baker’s libel case against Hemming and his counterclaim. A preliminary hearing is now likely to be listed in late February or early March. As reported at IICSA, Baker is suing Hemming for libel for allegedly accusing her of lying. Hemming countersues over her allegedly accusing him of rape on Twitter.

Continue reading →

Share Button