John Hemming Wins Judicial Review Over Police Complaint Handling

Posted on January 21, 2023 by Samuel Collingwood Smith

Former MP John Hemming

Former Liberal Democrat MP John Hemming has won outright a judicial review against the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC). Hemming obtained permission in a judgement of 18 November 2022, arising from a hearing where he represented himself and was accompanied by his partner Emily and also your author. That judgement is now up on BAILII. After permission was granted, the IOPC has conceded outright.

The two points on which Hemming has now prevailed are on the IOPC’s failure to deal with his complaints about a police conduct investigation as follows –

“a. As set out in his letter dated 6 October 2021, that email exchanges between DI Thomas and an officer of the 2nd Interested Party on 15 May 2020 gave rise to an appearance of bias.

b. As set out in his letters dated 22 August and 6 October 2021, that DI Thomas had known that DCS Oomer’s stated reasons (1) and (2) (recorded in his policy book on 1 March 2019) for categorising , once opened, the 2nd Interested Party’s investigation into EB [Esther Baker] (attempting to pervert the course of justice) as low priority were false and that DCS Oomer was aware that they were false.”

The IOPC has also agreed to pay Hemming’s costs. A copy of the relevant parts of the consent order is below –

The consent order in the Hemming Judicial Review of the IOPC.

John Hemming: Permission for Judicial Review over Alleged Police Dishonesty by Staffordshire Officer Javid Oomer

Posted on November 28, 2022 by Samuel Collingwood Smith

Detective Chief Superintendent Javid Oomer – Dishonesty allegations complaint found, “arguable” by judge. Career at Risk?

Former MP John Hemming has been granted permission for judicial review of the outcome of his police complaint appeal to the Independent Office of Police Complaints, over allegations of dishonest conduct by two police officers, Detective Inspector Simon Thomas of Gwent Police and Detective Chief Superintendent Javid Oomer of Staffordshire Police. This is only permission stage, so no findings of wrongdoing have yet been made, however the underlying evidence is of serious public concern.

Thomas was supposed to be investigating Staffordshire Police on the basis of a complaint by Hemming, but Hemming has, via MHN, come into possession of an email in which Thomas expresses a desire to “lessen”, “[…] elements of the lawsuit being taken against your Force […]” to a person at Staffordshire Police. Hemming raised this with the IOPC, which had ignored it. The judge, HHJ Richard Williams granted permission for Judicial Review on the basis that failing to address the allegation appeared to breach the applicable statutory guidance for the treatment of appeals to the IOPC.

The second piece of information which Hemming had discovered was that Javid Oomer had decided to treat the Esther Baker investigation as a low priority, on the basis of a series of reasons which Hemming believes (with some justification), Oomer must have known to be false, and DI Thomas must have known to be false. Again, this allegation was ignored by the IOPC and again Hemming was granted permission.

Continue reading →

Could the UK High Court Case of Smith v Baker Determine the Delaware Case of Twitter v Musk et al and the Fate of Twitter’s Vijaya Gadde?

Posted on August 23, 2022 by Samuel Collingwood Smith

Vijaya Gadde at a Fortune Brainstorm Tech event. Would she be such a popular speaker if she was properly no-platformed due to her allowing vile stalking and racism against a child rape victim as well as anti-Semitism? Picture by Photograph by Kevin Moloney/Fortune Brainstorm TECH. (NC License here).

On 4 April 2020, I published the article, “Twitter’s Del Harvey / Alison Shea and Vijaya Gadde Openly Back Child Rape Stalker and Anti-Semite Racist”. Multiple parties, including Twitter, threatened lawsuits. Twitter did not make good on their threats. Esther Baker attempted to do so. The lawsuit over the article, brought by Esther Baker in the High Court in London, was commenced in 2020 (before the Twitter purchase was proposed) and determined in my favour last week. The lawsuit has the potential to harm Twitter’s reputation. So, did Twitter know about it, and did they disclose it to Elon Musk when they formed the purchase agreement between Twitter and Musk currently being litigated in Delaware in the United States? Did Twitter notify Musk of the legal risks arising from the matters in this article – “Labour’s Secret Deal with Twitter and Facebook to Surveil its own members”? The article ended with an express threat to draw it to the attention of the relevant regulatory law enforcement body.

It is worth recapping for new readers. In 2020 I was covering a significant amount of what, in my opinion, was wrongdoing by Twitter. The Labour Party head office team had been using an in-house application that used their database of member emails, cross-referenced with privileged access to the Twitter API, to scan their members’ tweets for statements warranting disciplinary action. It is unclear if members’ consent was ever clearly sought for this by either the Labour Party or Twitter, or whether they were told about it. It is likely that would have been a legal requirement for processing to be compliant with the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).

The second issue was Twitter’s inconsistent handling of complaints of breaches of its rules. Esther Baker, had, at the time, been made subject to two restraining orders by UK courts. One was for libel and the other was for, in the words of His Honour Judge Gargan, “particularly malevolent” and “racist” stalking. One of her supporters, Alan Goodwin, had made plainly anti-Semitic posts including gratuitous, utterly baseless, speculation that a senior British government minister had conspired with Mossad to cover up child abuse. The actions of Esther Baker (@Esther9982) and her supporter Alan Goodwin (@Ciabaudo), followed by Twitter lawyer Vijaya Gadde’s failure to deal with them even after being thoroughly put on notice, were the subjects of my 4 April article.

Around 8pm on 1 May 2020, I received a letter from UK lawyers Bristows telling me that my article was libellous and there was, “no conceivable chance of defending” it as truth or honest opinion and saying it should be, “removed immediately”. I refused, and published the relevant section of the letter and mocked them in this article. I then requested further information under UK pre-action rules. Much as Elon Musk complains, Twitter were curiously reluctant to answer my questions and backed off as I detailed in my later article, “Twitter and Bristows in Humiliating Libel Climb Down”.

Extract from Bristows' Email of 6 May 2020

Bristows now claim they were never threatening to sue me on behalf of Twitter. That letter they sent me late on a Friday night was just abstract information shootin’ the breeze.

Bristows are a proper libel law firm and therefore know better than to test me in court. I stand by the article. Vijaya and her colleagues have in effect supported the actions of Esther Baker and Alan Goodwin by not banning / permanently suspending them from Twitter, when others have been banned without recourse for far lesser wrongdoing. In fact Twitter did not even remove the tweets that were the actus re of the stalking, just made them inaccessible in the UK.

Continue reading →

Smith v Baker, Summary Judgement on the Counterclaim! MHN Wins. Devastation for David Hencke, Mark Watts and Sonia Poulton

Posted on August 17, 2022 by Samuel Collingwood Smith

Esther Baker has lost her claim over articles that meant (as the court found) that she is depraved, stalked a child abuse victim for years, is a racist stalker worse than most other racist stalkers, tried to undermine a paedophile priest’s criminal conviction, told deliberate and malicious lies on Twitter for the purpose of raising money under false pretences, has made numerous unfounded allegations of sexual abuse, children are being abused by paedophiles because money and police resources have been used up by Ms Baker’s groundless allegations instead of being available to protect them and that it is possible that some of these children have been raped as a result.

In 2020 I filed a lawsuit against Esther Baker for libel and harassment. I won, and she agreed to be restrained for life after her defences of Truth and Public Interest were struck out. That court order is here. However, a counterclaim by Baker against MHN editor Sam Smith continued. Now, in a judgement today of Mr Justice Griffiths, that too has been defeated after your author applied for strike-out and / or summary judgement. The case is over. Esther Baker loses. MHN editor Sam Smith wins. The result is a devastating humiliation for fringe journalists like Mark Watts, Sonia Poulton and David Hencke who have given her account credence over the years.

The result is also a vindication for victims of Baker like former MP John Hemming, Darren Laverty and Simon Just of Real Troll Exposure. Each of these men has been subjected to substantial police involvement over the years due to Esther Baker’s false allegations. Now her supporters must suffer the consequences.

Baker and her supporters were cock-a-hoop earlier this year when Mr Justice Griffiths held that previous articles on this blog had defamatory meanings. Now, in today’s judgement the same judge has found that those meanings have been successfully defended, including via a defence of Truth –

“94. For these reasons, I am satisfied under CPR 3.9 that Ms Baker’s statements of case disclose no reasonable grounds for bringing the claim, that her statements of case are an abuse of the court’s process and are likely to obstruct the just disposal of the proceedings, and that they fail to comply with the requirements of Practice Direction 53B and the Griffiths Order. I am also satisfied under CPR 24 that Ms Baker has no real prospect of succeeding on her claims and there is no other compelling reason why the case should be disposed of at a trial.”

Furthermore, these are not mere technical findings because Baker failed to comply with court rules. The judge found that, had she complied and filed paperwork on time, she would still most likely have lost and had no realistic prospect of defeating my defence of Truth. As an example, Baker was suing me for saying that her mental illness caused her untrue allegations of child abuse. However, a medical report she had filed in other proceedings stated that she had decided to participate in IICSA (the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse), because a voice in her head told her to. The evidence was simply overwhelming. She conceded her mental illness in her draft reply and told the judge at the hearing about the voices in her head.

It is also worth mentioning that before judgement, at several stages, I gave Baker the option to drop her counterclaim with no further order for costs. She was not forced to bring this – it was her claim. No one used expensive lawyers, I am a law graduate and I defended myself. Baker had many warnings. Hard working judges, High Court Master Lisa Sullivan and High Court Judge Martin Griffiths, both gave Baker many chances to correct her pleadings and reply coherently to my defence of Truth. They gave detailed judgements and guidance on what steps Baker should take. They made express allowances for Baker’s mental disabilities. Baker failed to follow the rules in the case she brought and had the opportunity to drop.

There are a lot of meanings spread across eleven articles. The meanings that have now been defended ought to devastate Baker’s reputation, shame her supporters and Staffordshire Police.

The imputations defended are as follows, in the judge’s words cut-and-paste from the judgement on meaning. Because there were 11 articles, some are repetitive or overlapping. Each meaning has a shield next to them to show they have been successfully defended in court and can be relied upon by readers –

Continue reading →

Twitter’s Del Harvey / Alison Shea and Vijaya Gadde Openly Back Child Rape Stalker and Anti-Semite Racist

Posted on April 14, 2020 by Samuel Collingwood Smith

[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.]

Vijaya Gadde, Legal, Policy, Trust and Safety Lead at Twitter, at a Fortune Brainstorm Tech event. Would she be such a popular speaker if she was properly no-platformed due to her allowing vile stalking and racism against a child rape victim and anti-Semitism by the perpetrator’s friends? Picture by Photograph by Kevin Moloney/Fortune Brainstorm TECH. (NC License here).

Imagine you were raped as a child by a paedophile Priest. Then imagine that years later, as the trial of the priest took place you were subject to a campaign of racist stalking by a, “particularly malevolent”, vile and mentally ill harasser. The stalking puts your health and life at risk. Eventually, the Priest is convicted and the stalker is bankrupted and made subject to a lifelong restraining Order. Both verdicts are upheld on appeal. Now imagine, that an international social media company Twitter helps and empowers your stalker, who has been associated with prominent Labour MPs like Jess Phillips, and refuses to remove their stalking material, apparently contrary to its own rules.

[UPDATE From Twitter Below – 14 April 2020]

This of course is a real story. Esther Baker was recently bankrupted and made subject to a lifelong restraining Order for the racist stalking of a child abuse victim. Baker is of course publicly known because she was one of the VIP paedophile accusers associated with Exaro News, like Carl Beech. She received support from Labour MPs and was even invited to the House of Commons by Jess Phillips MP. Ironically Phillips is now the Shadow Minister for Domestic Violence and Safeguarding.

The judge really did call Baker, “particularly malevolent”. The restraining Order is one of two such Orders she has received because of course she has also been restrained from repeating her, “untrue” allegations about former MP John Hemming. Of course County Court judges see lots of stalkers, family cases and domestics so a finding that stalking is particularly malevolent is saying a lot. Baker was so depraved she even tried to contact the paedophile priest – to try to undermine his conviction! It borders on the immortal line, “So, we got a once in a lifetime, top of the line looney tuney”, from the movie Basic Instinct. Except of course that Baker, who admits to hearing voices, is no Sharon Stone.

The express findings of the County Court judge agreeing Baker behaved in a “vindictive, “obsessive” and “malevolent” way. MHN has erased the barrister’s name to protect the anonymity of the victim of Baker’s years of racist stalking. If only Vijaya Gadde, Del Harvey (Alison Shea), Karen White and Sinéad McSweeney over at Twitter would protect them too!

Whilst Baker has occasionally, grudgingly, removed some tweets she has not removed most of the stalking tweets including some that may put her in breach of the various court Orders against her. So, needless to say, Twitter were contacted by some of her victims. John Hemming had also been in contact with Twitter and can produce email receipts from their report form going as far back as 2017. As a result of a number of controversies, Twitter has enacted a number of supposed rules. Targeted harassment is supposedly prohibited (archive). Racist harassment is supposedly prohibited (archive). In the context of hate of protected groups, the Twitter rules state that, “We prohibit targeting individuals with repeated slurs […]”.

Continue reading →

Merseycare Pay Damages Over Esther Baker, Baker Loses Racism Appeal

Posted on March 10, 2020 by Samuel Collingwood Smith

The Witchfinder has received £3,500 in damages, an admission of liability and an apology from Merseycare NHS Foundation Trust on the basis that they revealed to Esther Baker that he had raised confidential safeguarding concerns about her. There is no confidentiality or non-disclosure agreement – I am free to tell all. Meanwhile, Esther Baker has lost her appeal against a finding she harassed a proven victim of child abuse, making racist tweets and apparently contacting the victim’s paedophile abuser – with a view to helping the abuser overturn their conviction.

Sam Smith, the editor of MHN, has received £3,500 damages for the disclosure of confidential information by Merseycare NHS Foundation Trust. Click for full size.

In late 2018, I raised serious concerns about the well-being of Esther Baker. I wrote to her psychiatrist, Dr Kate Wood and to executives at her local NHS Trust.

All of my concerns have been realised – I warned Esther Baker was at risk of large costs Orders in court proceedings she has unwisely brought and defended. The Orders were made. I warned Baker was at risk of bankruptcy. She has been bankrupted. I warned Baker was at risk of her job. She has lost her job. I warned of further civil and criminal legal troubles – they are in process. I warned Baker was a danger to others – the County Court has found her liable for stalking, the High Court for defamation. In both cases lifelong restraining Orders have been made.

Nearly every risk has materialised.

Continue reading →

Staffordshire Police, DCS Javid Oomer, DC Garry Bainbridge Must be Investigated Over Esther Baker Bias

Posted on February 8, 2020 by Samuel Collingwood Smith

Detective Chief Superintendent Javid Oomer is currently acting up as Temporary Assistant Chief Constable. However, is he showing bias?

Just past 2:23am on 3rd February 2020, Esther Baker emailed Staffordshire Police and John Hemming to complain I had violated her anonymity as a rape victim under the Sexual Offences Act 2003. This is of course ridiculous. Baker’s anonymity is the most waived there ever was – she has commented on Sky News, the Guardian, the Daily Mail and many other publications. Why does she keep putting in these absurd complaints? If her public court filings are correct, it is because Staffordshire Police are encouraging her.

On 17th December 2019 Esther Baker filed her Re-Amended Reply to Defence in the claim Baker V Hemming. By way of brief explanation, Esther Baker was an abuse accuser who alleged that a group of VIPs and others ritually abused her. No charges have been brought. She has attempted to sue one of the VIPs, former MP John Hemming for libel for calling her a liar. He counter-sued for libel over her rape allegations. Much of Baker’s claim was struck out last year and she lost the counter-claim entirely, with Mrs Justice Steyn ruling her allegations of VIP ritual abuse, “untrue”. Baker is now supposedly under police investigation.

A few small parts of Baker’s claim continue as to whether she lied or there was some other explanation for the untruth such as honest mistake or mental illness, although some more of Baker’s claim was struck out at a hearing on 30 January 2020. The pleadings are available to the public without permission under CPR 5.4C. Under CPR 5.4C (1) (a) any non-party may obtain a copy of the pleadings (but not attachments) in the case as of right without the court’s permission so the pleadings are not confidential. They may be reported upon.

One passage I find particularly chilling is this one –

“[…] The Claimant’s liaison officer at Staffordshire police who has recently become involved in the case again due to the Defendant’s behaviour and admissions, has repeatedly stated to me that as far as Staffordshire Police are concerned the Claimant is regarded as a victim of crimes and not a suspect […]“

Esther Baker’s liaison officer is Detective Constable 4163 Garry Bainbridge. The officer running the purported investigation is, DCS Javid Oomer. If Bainbridge has told Baker that Staffordshire Police regard her as a “victim of crimes and not a suspect”, acting as liaison for Oomer, then that completely prejudges the investigation that the police are supposedly conducting. More importantly, it ignores the multiple recent court rulings against her.

I therefore believe there is grounds for an investigation into police bias and / or failure of duty. I put it no higher than the lowest ‘Chase Level’ meaning. Baker has made a formal statement in court. However, she has in the past been incorrect or mistaken – including of course in her serious allegations that John Hemming raped her. It is possible that Baker is mistaken, or that police have some reasonable excuse. DC Bainbridge might not have been fully briefed on the court rulings, for example. Ms Baker, who hears voices, might have misunderstood his position due to her mental health difficulties. Because of that, I do not say there is anything more than grounds for investigation.

In November 2019, the County Court found that Baker had engaged in racist harassment of a proven child abuse victim and awarded said victim £12,500 in damages – details are in my full article here. The stalking included specific, imminent, violent threats as this extract from the judgement shows –

The County Court found that Esther Baker threatened to commit battery against a vulnerable child abuse survivor. MHN underlining.

Continue reading →

Staffordshire Police, Esther Baker and DCS Javid Oomer – His Career and Reputation on the Line?

Posted on August 27, 2019 by Samuel Collingwood Smith

Detective Chief Superintendent Javid Oomer – Career at Risk?

Staffordshire Police believe Esther Baker is a criminal. Recently, I reported some of her Twitter posts as harassment directed at myself and (indirectly) former MP John Hemming. Upon review, a crime number was assigned which can only happen if an officer considers on balance of probabilities that an offence was committed (police email below). I am far from the only complainant, with far more serious allegations outstanding. How is it that Baker has not yet been interviewed over the many allegations against her?

Last week the BBC reported (archive) that Staffordshire police are conducting an ongoing investigation into Baker over the far more serious allegations of Perverting the Course of Justice and Harassment of John Hemming. The investigation is currently with Detective Chief SuperIntendent Javid Oomer and frankly, a large number of powerful people are unhappy about the police, the speed of the investigation and Oomer’s attitude. To put this in context, Mr Hemming first reported Baker in 2015!

Staffordshire Police considered my allegations against Esther Baker and allocated a crime number before referring the matter elsewhere.

Continue reading →

Matthew Hopkins – The Witchfinder General

Exposing the Guilty – Protecting the Vulnerable

Category Archives: Staffordshire Police

John Hemming Wins Judicial Review Over Police Complaint Handling

John Hemming: Permission for Judicial Review over Alleged Police Dishonesty by Staffordshire Officer Javid Oomer

Could the UK High Court Case of Smith v Baker Determine the Delaware Case of Twitter v Musk et al and the Fate of Twitter’s Vijaya Gadde?

Smith v Baker, Summary Judgement on the Counterclaim! MHN Wins. Devastation for David Hencke, Mark Watts and Sonia Poulton

Twitter’s Del Harvey / Alison Shea and Vijaya Gadde Openly Back Child Rape Stalker and Anti-Semite Racist

Merseycare Pay Damages Over Esther Baker, Baker Loses Racism Appeal

Staffordshire Police, DCS Javid Oomer, DC Garry Bainbridge Must be Investigated Over Esther Baker Bias

Staffordshire Police, Esther Baker and DCS Javid Oomer – His Career and Reputation on the Line?