Former Guardian journalist has had a long-overdue taste of real justice.

Former Guardian ‘journalist’ David Hencke, who was ‘Head of News’  at ill-fated Exaro News before it collapsed, has agreed to a settlement order in John Hemming’s claim against him on humiliating terms. Although he has made no admission of liability the terms of settlement require him to make a public statement, pay a donation to the charity Victim Support in lieu of damages and agree to significant restrictions on his reporting. The case proves that anyone who describes historic rape complainant Esther Baker as a ‘victim’ or ‘survivor’ is at risk of being sued for libel and losing. Indeed Hencke has now agreed to restrictions on his use of those words.

Exaro news has a lot to answer for. During its brief period of prominence Exaro extensively covered and promoted a series of child abuse allegations, many of which have been investigated at vast public expense. Now, their star accuser Carl Beech is on trial himself for fraud and perverting the the course of justice (archive).

David Hencke’s article of 18 May 2018 was utterly despicable. The article covered another Exaro complainant, Esther Baker, whose unsubstantiated allegations of abuse by a number of VIPs have led to no convictions whatsoever. In the article, Hencke named former MP John Hemming and referred to Baker’s father. He used the word ‘survivor’ even though the Inquiry Into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA) he was reporting on has specifically decided not to use that word in relation to people like Esther Baker whose allegations are not proven. That got him sued for libel in the High Court.

As set out in more detail in my first article. Hencke gratuitously named ‘Z’ a proven child abuse victim (whose abuser has been convicted), yet neglected to mention that ‘Z’ was suing Baker and giving evidence making allegations against Hencke’s former Exaro colleague Mark Conrad. This caused ‘Z’ substantial distress. The article also failed to mention that ‘Z’ was suing Esther Baker (whose story Hencke has promoted) and Graham Wilmer (the main person quoted in the article). John Hemming is also suing Graham Wilmer. ‘Z’s claim against Wilmer has been resolved amicably with no adverse finding nor admission of liability by Mr Wilmer, leaving Baker the only Defendant. Hemming’s claim against Wilmer continues.

The article implied John Hemming was dishonest. Hemming had referred to an investigation of ‘Baker’ and Hencke referred to this as a ‘fantasy’. In fact police from multiple forces had indicated they wished to investigate Baker and Hemming was acting in good faith. Baker is now under investigation by Staffordshire police for harassment and perverting the course of justice and has been since June. An investigation by Merseyside into allegations of harassment is also ongoing.

Hemming, with my help, issued proceedings in the High Court. Hencke tried to talk tough and even tried to argue it was acceptable for individuals to state on his blog that they believe Esther Baker. He refused to remove such comments – until he was served with 3 notices under section 5 Defamation Act 2013. The comments came down within 5 days. Shortly thereafter Hencke settled.

Cowardly Hencke acted like the worthless disgrace to humanity that he is. He was happy to gloat about his worthless ‘victory’ over ‘Z’ (a dyslexic child abuse victim) at IMPRESS. He crumbled very swiftly against mild pressure from real adversaries.

There was some debate as to whether to accept a settlement. The decision was finally made because a good settlement against a professional journalist with specialist media lawyers (Hencke was represented by RPC) would underline the ruinous dangers of referring to Esther Baker as a ‘victim’ or ‘survivor’. Future defendants, should there be a need for further action, will not be so lucky. Hencke has agreed to the following to get himself off the hook –

• to place a clarifying statement on his blog and keep it there for as long as the original article
• to make a donation for a fixed sum to charity in lieu of damages
• to refrain from publishing anything “conveying the meaning (whether expressly, by imputation or innuendo) that [Hemming] raped Esther Baker”
• to “remove any user comments on the Blog that convey the meaning (whether expressly, by imputation or innuendo) that the [Hemming] raped Esther Baker”
• not to refer to Esther Baker as a ‘victim’ or ‘survivor’ when the use of such terms in context presupposes the truth of her claims against Hemming
• to bear all his own costs (to be fair Hemming has to bear his own costs but as I did a lot of the work pro-bono, Hemming’s costs were very limited – to his court fees and some work by barrister Richard Owen Thomas)

Finally, it is important to note that this court victory does not in any way prove that Esther Baker’s allegations are not true, it only shows that they are unproven. However as revealed at IICSA, Baker and Hemming are suing each other both in the High Court claiming they can prove the matter one way or the other. Hemming has applied to strike out Esther Baker’s defence to his counterclaim and there is likely to be a hearing January (which will be newsworthy however it goes).

Despite his humiliation Hencke has gotten off lightly so far, mostly for being first to settle. His decision to bring a swift end to matters protects him from substantial financial risks and also from other adversity such as media scrutiny of himself and his family. He is unlikely to be treated so generously should he repeat his behaviour in future.