John Hemming and Sonia Poulton faced each other in court again in Hemming v Poulton at a preliminary trial of meaning on 11th July 2024. The hearing did not go well for Sonia, who has always denied defaming Hemming.
Artists impression – John Hemming and Sonia Poulton clash at the High Court in London on 11th July 2024, backed by supporters. Poulton extends a skeletal hand across the battlefield, urging her undead minions forward.
For the past four years, Sonia Poulton has been denying she defamed John Hemming. As to some of her posts she even denies they mentioned him. That position began to crumble, badly, earlier this year when Deputy Master Irena Sabic (a High Court procedural judge) struck out Poulton’s denials as inconsistent with a witness statement and ordered a preliminary trial of meaning.
The preliminary trial of meaning occurred on 11th July 2024 and the judgment is here, for those who prefer to read the court’s words for themselves. Under consideration were two of the five publications for which Poulton is being sued. The judge, Deputy High Court Judge Susie Alegre, found both publications contained defamatory meanings. The weakest was an opinion meaning – but still defamatory, for a video Poulton made with Shaun Attwood and published in 2019. Even so, Poulton faces a critical difficulty. Opinion meanings are usually easier to defend – except for damning documents that have now passed into the public domain. Correspondence with police shows that Sonia Poulton finds Esther Baker so untrustworthy she would not give evidence for her in their failed criminal trial (charges dropped) against Darren Laverty.
Speaking of the website that promoted the original allegations by Esther Baker, Exaro News, Sonia described some of the other abuse allegators they promoted as being unable to, “lie straight in bed”. It is difficult to reconcile this with the opinion meaning found. She simply does not hold that opinion. Worse for Poulton, Hemming is suing her under the GDPR, alleging the publication in question was also, “inadequate” and “inaccurate” when processing his personal data because Poulton did not mention that there had already been investigations of the case by police, with no further action. The meaning found highlights the need for that information in the original video and strengthens the data protection claim.
Another damning email from Sonia Poulton to police officer Vicky Allen.
Speaking of lies brings us onto the second publication which Poulton had denied even referred to Hemming. This was a (now re-written) post on her fundraising page claiming that John, Darren and I had pressured the attorney general into prosecuting her, causing her to be interviewed by police. The judge found this had three separate defamatory meanings, two being allegations of fact and one of opinion. She also found that, as Sonia Poulton has not appealed Deputy Master Sabic’s order, the question of who it refers to is no longer in issue. It did refer to us.
The next phase in the case will be amended defences. Now the meanings are known, Sonia knows what she has to defend. Sonia’s difficulty in this case with the latter publication is that Spin v Truth editor Simon Just gave evidence that in fact he reported her – not Hemming, myself nor Darren.
Ms Poulton’s other difficulty with the post is the fact that she is guilty of at least the actus reus of the offence for which she was interviewed. She named two child torture victims in an interview, in breach of a court order intended to protect them. Reporting her to police was entirely proper. Bizarrely, she has in recent court documents, used at public hearings, admitted the video she made with Attwood was, “illegal” and accuses Hemming, Darren and I of distributing it. Poulton has known the video was illegal since she was interviewed by police. If the video was illegal, then it cannot have been wrong to report it and the entire post found to be defamatory was in fact malicious.
Which leaves Poulton nowhere to go. Which begs the question, why not settle?
[Edited by MHN 20 November 2024 to remove information relating to third parties]
Well, you could knock me down with a feather, so you could! God bless us and save us.
I know she’s a lying so and so, and will lie her arse off to police and even to a judge in court – but for feck’s sake, I’ve read the judgment several times, so I have, and it’s not fecking “brilliant” for her at all, so it isn’t.
How the feck has she deduced that she has had a “brilliant” result?
In fact, had I received such a judgment, I certainly wouldn’t be bragging about it, and wanting to publish it all over the place, so I wouldn’t. I would be curled up in bed under my quilt, and full of shame that I had been out with a begging bowl, and accepting thousands of pounds in cash and coffees from the flock of people whom I’d been lying my arse off to for years on end.
Here is what she said this morning. Excuse any typos, such as “fighting fans” 🤣 The transcript came from an artificial source:
“I love you. Thank you everybody for being here. Thank you for your suggestions. Thank you
for your emails. Thank you for your donations. Your contributions. Thank you for everything. I will be updating my legal uh fighting fund page um this week. Got some news. Please don’t make any comments in the chat um about any of my legal situation, because I’m not encouraging that, and I ask you not to. But I will be updating my fighting fan page, and uh with a rather brilliant judgment that came through at the end of last week which I’m going to run in full, because I think it’s well worth reading…”
🍿🍿🍿🤣🍌🍌🍌
Talk about cognitive dissonance.
I could’ve posted a very long rant about exactly what she’s done and where she stands legally. However, on reflection, that is best held back for another time given what I know about the content of material relevant to Publication 5 and how much Poulton actually jeopardised child safety in the Attwood “Hampstead” interview. Not only in relation to Hampstead btw but in a wider context that has a potential significance to the Wilfred Wong case [and not in a good way for either Poulton or Attwood].
So for now, I’ll keep those opinions to myself… although one pointer that should be said is that making false allegations to the police, grooming belief in police officers, wasting time by backing out of prosecutions after initiating them (and conspiring with others to do so) and in court documents is not going to help Ms Poulton at all.
If she continues to even imply those false allegations in any material such as her personal appearances at events or online in any way, then she will be likely committing other offences [if she hasn’t already done so in the middle of the civil case].
Sam, failed to mention, perhaps unsurprisingly, that Poulton’s attempts to falsely implicate three innocent individuals also came at a time when Poulton was knowingly under police investigation. Not only did she make those allegations in a witness statement in the civil case but she has also admitted she made those allegations to the police and as they were false allegations she was very likely committing criminal offences.
The High Court have, to date, failed to twig the extent of her criminal behaviour. It is long overdue that she was investigated for multiple offences, especially relating to wasting police time, making false allegations (numerous times about the same people) and also the deceptive aspect of her “Farting Fund” (one of those damned autotranscript errors comes to the fore again!!). Perhaps if she, rather stupidly imho, continues with the civil case then there will be an opportunity for the detail of those offences to be made very public and then it is more likely that the police will latch onto what they’ve fundamentally failed to do so far regarding her wider behaviour.
A sensible person (as defendant) wouldn’t have allowed the civil case to have gotten to this rather disastrous stage but it seems the game, rather than the outcome of it, is more important to Poulton than the truth and that outcome. Her choice but she cannot possibly portray herself as a victim anymore. The judge has ruled that she defamed Hemming at least twice and the implications from the ruling on Pub 5 at least are also damning from other legal aspects if my interpretation is correct.
Elsewhere, I’m still PMSL at her attempt to have a go at narcissists when she exhibits all the signs of being a prize narcissist herself. All of the “symptoms” she stated that narcissists exhibit in her Ep 17 of “Doze Off with Sonia” (that damned autotranscript problem again!) apply to her in not just spades but whole fleets of JCB tractors. Self awareness doesn’t seem to have been covered in that claimed psychology degree… or it needs a refresh.
Samuel Collingwood Smith on July 22, 2024 at 9:37 pm said: “Talk about cognitive dissonance.”
Quite scary, isn’t it.
And is this “rather brilliant judgment” in the room with her right now? 🤣
I. can’t. breathe. Would like to have been at the RCJ to observe all this in real time, but one of my unicorns went into labour. Maybe next time…
She should be bricking it rather than “brilliant” glossing it over… the more she misleads others the more trouble she will land herself in. She still doesn’t get it.
As Obi-Wan Kenobi may have said about her… “the Cognitive Dissonance is strong in this one”…
As I said above, there is a LOT more to come out about the material behind Publication 5’s stupidity. A LOT more. But if she wants to continue to push matters then the more she pushes the more likely the full detail is going to be made public… she really doesn’t want that. Deep down she doesn’t because she will remember what she said … and it was a LOT more than just children’s names.
Joey Barton with Jeremy Vine… Laurence Fox and his false paedophile allegations… and now Poulton… all meanings were determined as being “defamatory”. It didn’t turn out well for Barton and Fox… how on earth she thinks it’s gonna turn out well for her is simply beyond logic.
There is a classic quote in the HBO/Sky Atlantic mini-series “Chernobyl” which I think is highly relevant to her:
“We’re on dangerous ground right now, because of our secrets and our lies. They’re practically what define us. When the truth offends, we lie and lie until we can no longer remember it is even there. But it is…still there. Every lie we tell incurs a debt to the truth. Sooner or later, that debt is paid.”
And her debt is growing. By the minute.
p.s. Those damn unicorns haven’t got any sense of timing… but they do look very dainty in spangly dressage… or so I’m reliably informed…
SvT on July 23, 2024 at 12:44 pm said:
“The High Court have, to date, failed to twig the extent of her criminal behaviour. It is long overdue that she was investigated for multiple offences, especially relating to wasting police time, making false allegations (numerous times about the same people) and also the deceptive aspect of her “Farting Fund” (one of those damned autotranscript errors comes to the fore again!!). Perhaps if she, rather stupidly imho, continues with the civil case then there will be an opportunity for the detail of those offences to be made very public and then it is more likely that the police will latch onto what they’ve fundamentally failed to do so far regarding her wider behaviour.”
👍 Was thinking along the same lines myself when she wrote the below ‘update’ on July 11th 2024. She may have been “looking forward” to finally venting her spleen with her years long rehearsed and perfected ‘questions’, but her gangsta mates who have previously been down the road to perjury, and perverting and obstructing justice, lying to police, and deleting evidence with her before, must have shat their pants when they saw this particular ‘update’. 🤣
Sonia Poulton wrote on her Fighting Fund page July 11th 2024
“Once the decision was made I accepted it and started to see definite advantages to it.
I prepared for two days – pre-recorded Friday’s breakfast show – and looked forward to the cross examination of Hemming’s witnesses.”
😃🔥🔥🔥🚒🚒🚒🚔🚔🚓🚓👮♀️👮♂️👮♀️👮♂️
Albeit the judge would no doubt have stepped in, and told her to stfu and deal with the matters in hand if she’d dared to go off on a tangent. And would most probably have also given her a bollocking for intimidating witnesses via social media in advance of court hearings.
Because it’s not big, and it’s not clever to behave like this in very serious adult situations such as court cases which can cost tens, if not hundreds of thousands of pounds.
Rory Port on July 23, 2024 at 4:07 pm said:
“👍 Was thinking along the same lines myself when she wrote the below ‘update’ on July 11th 2024.”
I think quite a few of us were thinking the same, Rory. I’m most intrigued to see how she will spin, or expand on this part of her last ‘update’ below. It would be nice for her flock and general observers to know why “no witnesses appeared”. Her ‘updates’ are always written in such a vague manner that it can be difficult to decipher what she means, so it can. For instance, does she mean the witnesses didn’t appear because they couldn’t be bothered to turn up at court because it was such a lovely, sunny day? Or does she mean the judge decided that the fact the witnesses had made themselves available, was plenty good enough for the court case, and it would do Poulton no favours at all, to have allowed her to set about “cross-examining” the witness statements? 😃
Sonia Poulton’s ‘update’ regarding the preliminary trial (almost a fortnight ago):
“Back to today. The Judge – Dr. Susie Allegre – was very clear about how she intended to run things in her court room. Whatever the outcome I liked her no-nonsense approach. So, the whole thing was over in less than three hours and no witnesses appeared. Judge decision on yesterday is yet to come. More info when that’s received.”
*Still waiting. Almost two weeks now…* 🍿🍿🍿
Evil Auld Trout on July 24, 2024 at 9:33 am said:
“Sonia Poulton’s ‘update’ regarding the preliminary trial (almost a fortnight ago):
“Back to today. The Judge – Dr. Susie Allegre – was very clear about how she intended to run things in her court room. Whatever the outcome I liked her no-nonsense approach.”
@ Evil. I’m wondering what led Poulton to say that the judge made it “very clear about how she intended to run things in her court room.”
Oh, I say! Could she mean that the judge was giving off very firm vibes from the start, that Poulton should show some respect and behave like she was in a court of law that day, and not start acting the arse like she always did when she was on telly, or when she does her ‘breakfast shows’?
Not that the judge will ever have seen one of Poulton’s breakfast shows of course. Because judges (like most other people) don’t tend to have their breakfast at the time of day Poulton does her ‘breakfast shows’ (unless they’re on holiday). They would usually have done a commute and half a day’s work by that time of the morning!
Sonia Poulton is a real piece of work, so she is. Does she never take a day off from spewing hatred and venom all over the place? What a nasty bigot she is.
Kew Gardens
@kewgardens
23h
We’re deeply disappointed to see some of our staff and students subjected to online harassment. Hatred and intolerance have no place at Kew, and we’re more committed than ever to embracing diversity and creating an inclusive environment for all.
770
258
1.9K
380K
Sonia Poulton
@SoniaPoulton
1 hr
We don’t want queer plants and we don’t expect you to be championing this madness. You’ve turned the wonderful Kew Gardens into a laughing stock for ideology.
https://x.com/SoniaPoulton/status/1816087740712161560
👀👀👀
“@SoniaPoulton We don’t want queer plants…”
Wtf?
If I was cop involved in investigating a case of Sonia Poulton’s abuse of Kew Gardens’ staff with her threatening behaviour, bigotry, transphobia, and pronoun phobia etc, I would be very concerned for the staff. This sort of hate speech is known to incite her flock into piling onto her targets with similar tweets.
Sonia Poulton should be banned from going within a thousand yards of Kew Gardens for the rest of her life.
Her tweet below could already have caused a loss in online bookings. Which means Kew Gardens would start losing money. Leading to job losses.
And those plants can’t f*cking water themselves!
Sonia Poulton
@SoniaPoulton
We don’t want queer plants and we don’t expect you to be championing this madness. You’ve turned the wonderful Kew Gardens into a laughing stock for ideology.
https://x.com/SoniaPoulton/status/1816087740712161560
I am grossed out. I have just seen Sonia Poulton’s email about having her contraceptive coil removed again. Horrible images. I feel assaulted. I feel ill. I need to lie down.
If I was cop investigating any case which involves Sonia Poulton, I would start by charging her for writing this email.
Then I think I would ask Mr Butt if he would like to report her for conning him with her lies and fantasies about being stalked and threatened by ‘dark forces’, and costing him a fortune in legal fees.
It was sickening to watch her making him believe his site had been hacked by ‘dark forces’ because she worked for him. Shocking to see her then go on to further abuse his generosity, by lying and fantasising that ‘dark forces’ were putting pressure on the police to charge her for the heinous act of naming children who are protected by court. Knowing that this would lead him into footing the bill for her to use an expensive, “brilliant” criminal lawyer, whom she could keep on “speed dial”.
Ilie Myassovalot on July 24, 2024 at 11:05 pm said:
“Her tweet below could already have caused a loss in online bookings. Which means Kew Gardens would start losing money. Leading to job losses.
And those plants can’t f*cking water themselves!”
🥹🥹🥹
Large greenhouse for sale. Buyer to dismantle. Developer enquiries welcome.
😢
Ilie Myassovalot on July 24, 2024 at 11:05 pm said:
“Then I think I would ask Mr Butt if he would like to report her for conning him with her lies and fantasies about being stalked and threatened by ‘dark forces’, and costing him a fortune in legal fees.”
👀👀👀
I’ve seen fillums and documentaries about this sort of thing, Ilie. People conning generous people into trusting them, and making them believe all their lies. Then taking advantage of them in the most wicked ways. Sometimes leaving their targets in tremendous debt.
No matter how many times some targets in the filllums were warned that they were being duped, and shown evidence of it, they still would not take any notice, so they wouldn’t! I would be shouting at the telly, and telling them not to be so gullible, so I would. I felt the same when I was watching Mr Butt believing and defending Sonia Poulton.
As seen on X:
“Sonia Poulton
@SoniaPoulton
We don’t want queer plants and we don’t expect you to be championing this madness. You’ve turned the wonderful Kew Gardens into a laughing stock for ideology.
1:27 PM · Jul 24, 2024
CritFacts has ✨Thoughts™✨
@CritFacts
You call yourself a journalist who criticizes ideology,
But you’re so obsessed with hating trans people that you’re trying to harass and bully a freaking botanical organization because they don’t hate trans people like you want everyone else to.
Get a life, worm.”
👀👀👀🔥🔥🔥
3. Reporting Restrictions etc
The reporting restrictions legislation is covered under s.39 Children and Young Persons Act 1933 (which had been previously ordered (restrictions) in the Hampstead case) but in any case children are anonymous in such cases in both the law and the IPSO Code of Conduct, the reporting restrictions just ram home that need for anonymity and are basically a reminder to the press to fecking behave themselves. In other words, the breach of the legislation doesn’t actually REQUIRE a reporting restriction to be in place in other words. Anyone breaching the legislation in the way Poulton did is in contempt.
It is therefore the same legislation which Jeanette Archer pleaded guilty to in breaching the restrictions in the Wong kidnap case in almost exactly the same way – Archer was prosecuted as have others regarding Hampstead breaches, Poulton wasn’t. There is a mismatch in that application of the law especially considering how many times Poulton actually breached the full court order(s).
As Poulton admits that she broke the reporting restrictions, that her words were “illegal” by her own admission then she broke the law regarding the protection of “Children and Young Persons”. She needs to understand that, accept that she did it and stop trying to spin other angles on it. She was caught out. End of.
It is, however, therefore reasonable to claim that she abused her position as a “journalist” and also by the nature of the breaches also committed acts which put the safety of children in jeopardy. Thus this is how some people can reasonably and honestly claim, as their own opinion, that she abused children [not physically] but through her breaches of the law protecting the identities of children in family law cases etc. Again she needs to understand that and whilst she carries on hurling false allegations around against other people then the more likely it is that the full details of precisely what she did will become known.
SvT on July 25, 2024 at 3:08 pm said:
“It is, however, therefore reasonable to claim that she abused her position as a “journalist” and also by the nature of the breaches also committed acts which put the safety of children in jeopardy. Thus this is how some people can reasonably and honestly claim, as their own opinion, that she abused children [not physically] but through her breaches of the law protecting the identities of children in family law cases etc. Again she needs to understand that and whilst she carries on hurling false allegations around against other people then the more likely it is that the full details of precisely what she did will become known.”
👏
I agree with all of this. Abuse is abuse. No matter what form it comes in. I do not understand why police have not charged her. This is an extremely serious matter which cannot be left to police discretion under any circumstances. The Judge’s words are written in stone as far as the law is concerned.
The words ‘threatening behaviour’ ‘menacing’ and ‘witness intimidation’ sprang to mind many times whilst reading her latest ‘update’. Knowing her history, it may have been a very disturbing read for her past and present victims, and of course, for any of her associates, who know it is only a matter of time before they too could become one of her victims…
🔥🤣
“Sonia Poulton
@SoniaPoulton
Jul 24
Replying to
@kewgardens
We don’t want queer plants and we don’t expect you to be championing this madness. You’ve turned the wonderful Kew Gardens into a laughing stock for ideology.
McBea
@Mcbeath_on_sea
Thought you would get your tuppence in, when did you last go to Kew?”
Aha. She is so predictable, so she is 😃 Her most current court case is now no longer her problem alone… 😃
This court case could be about to affect everyone in the world who talks tripe and churns out the same sort of dangerous shoite onto the internet as she does – without a care in the world for anyone’s privacy and safety.
So it looks like she’s saying all podcasters should get with the programme, and become acquainted with her case, and find out how “oppressed” she is, and learn all about the “chilling impact” and “chilling effects”. Only then will they find out what is lying in wait for all podcasters and their guests.
Now, if this doesn’t bring in some donations and soothing messages, I don’t know what else she could try. She’s tried everything else, so she has 🤣 Ffs.
From where I’m sitting, it looks to me as if she could still be touting for MSM to make documentaries about her trials, and how she deals with ‘dark forces’.
This is from her latest ‘update’:
“The potential implications of this lawsuit, should Mr. Hemming win at trial, include a chilling impact on those making ‘crime’ podcasts and for those appearing in them.
Up to this point, I was not aware of the potential censorship impact of this civil case, but I am now.
Some of it potentially plays into the hands of ongoing online censorship including the Online Safety Act.
If you have the time, care or inclination, please read the whole judgment but I thought it would be helpful to show the paragraph numbers I am referring to for easy reference.
Paragraph 28 Sets out that just the act of appearing in certain podcasts – with certain titles – can be problematic. This is aside from whether you defame anyone within the podcast. Imagine the chilling effect that could have on the genre.
Who’s going to want to appear in these type of ‘crime’ podcasts and put themselves in such a vulnerable position if they are left to carry the can should someone take issue with it? Not me, for one!
Paragraph 41 outlines the problems of people using ‘alleged’ or ‘claimed’ in these podcasts and how that will not “insulate a publisher” from being sued for ‘repeating an allegation’. “The ‘repetition rule’ is deeply embedded in defamation proceedings.” (Paragraph 18).
I have always denied repeating the allegation made against Mr. Hemming.
When Shaun Attwood asked me, I said I didn’t know the truth. But that may not be enough if someone decides to sue you.
That is troubling and has huge implications in terms of discussing anything of this type on the internet. A chilling effect, indeed.”
Regarding this ….er …..er lady, I’ve said before a wise general knows when to retreat and I’ve had expected a skilled and experienced journalist to have done her due diligence and been aware she shouldn’t have said what she said about those children in the Shaun Attwood interview.
Slightly off-topic the Archlizard is back grifting – offering ‘psychic healing”.