[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.]
Esther Baker suffered a humiliating defeat yesterday when John Hemming won the central point of the libel claim between them. In a judgement handed down in the High Court, Mrs Justice Steyn ruled that Baker libeled Hemming by accusing him of rape on Twitter. Some aspects of the claim remain live, the court has yet to rule on Baker’s claims Hemming libeled her by calling her a liar and criminal but Baker has been prohibited from saying John Hemming raped her even within the proceedings. Baker also applied to strike out Hemming’s claim, relying on 168 pages of exhibits (mostly articles from this website). Her application, including her many many many complaints about me, were found to have, “no merit”.
This article will be brief because the judgement is on BAILII. The whole judgement is lengthy, and worth reading in full. A few key points –
- Baker is suing Hemming for libel and he is counter-claiming. In 2015 Baker, like Carl Beech from Exaro (who she supported on Twitter) made allegations of rape against an alleged faith related abuse group including in later versions at least two politicians including Hemming and a Labour Cabinet Minister. Baker is suing Hemming for calling her a liar and accusing her of Perverting the Course of Justice. Hemming counter-sues Baker for accusing him on Twitter of raping her and also allegedly accusing him of being involved in cult / ritual abuse.
- At the hearing on 17th October 2019 for which judgement was handed down today, Hemming and Baker applying to strike out each other’s claims and defences. Hemming also applied for summary judgement and an interim injunction. Today the judge ruled on those applications. She found in favour of part of Hemming’s application and rejected Baker’s as having, “no merit”.
- The judge held that Baker’s tweet did at least bear the meaning that Hemming raped her and the judge ruled this was libel. She granted Hemming summary judgement to this extent. Baker must pay damages – there is also an application for an injunction. It remains undecided whether the words in the tweet, “also bear an innuendo meaning that the Defendant abused the Claimant as part of a ritual cult involving Cabinet Ministers, MPs, Lords and Judges”. That is for trial.
- The judge held that Baker had deliberately dropped her defence of Truth