[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.]
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.
