Esther Baker has made numerous allegations of sexual abuse. Now two of her supporters have entered into restraining agreements in settlements of libel claims against them. Baker is presently under police investigation herself.
Graham Wilmer, Director of the Lantern Project, has humiliatingly apologised to former MP John Hemming as part of the settlement of Hemming’s claim against him for libel and harassment. Hemming was supported by myself and I assisted him before Mr Justice Andrew Baker as McKenzie Friend at an ex-parte hearing on 5th January 2018. Wilmer had backed Esther Baker’s allegations against Hemming and claimed repeatedly that they were true. Now he has entered into a legal agreement never, for the rest of his life, to make any statement that might mean Hemming has committed any crime at all.
The Daily Mail (archive), the Telegraph (archive), the Times, Barthsnotes (archive) and Real Troll Exposure (archive) have published articles about the settlement but there seems to have been some confusion about what the claims were for and what the settlement actually says. So just to be clear –
- David Hencke was sued for libel as per my article on that settlement, but Graham Wilmer was sued for Harassment and Libel.
- Wilmer agreed to pay nearly all Hemming’s costs – £9,028. Hemming’s costs were very low by the standards of libel cases because he had a pro-bono legal advisor – me. Whilst I am not a solicitor I have an LL.M LPC (Commendation). John had paid a court fee of £3,028 and over £6,000 in various other expenses. Most of this was that I also recommended he seek an opinion from a barrister on a few issues. The barrister, Richard Owen Thomas was extremely helpful and professional and I recommend him.
- Wilmer agreed to pay £1,000 as a donation in lieu of damages to Birmingham Children’s Hospital.
- Wilmer agreed to apologise.
- Wilmer agreed never to make any publication or statement that expressly, by imputation or innuendo conveys the meaning that Hemming is guilty of any crime. This includes specifically the alleged rape of Esther Baker or the crime of Blackmail. This agreement lasts forever.
- The order settling the Hencke case states that there is no admission of liability, but the Wilmer order does not.
Fairly obviously, if John had won at a trial, he would have received his costs, damages, a judgement and some form of restraint on Wilmer. In short this agreement is exactly the same as what Hemming would have got on a successful judgement except with a discount on costs and damages for settling early. The letter of apology is below –
Graham Wilmer has apologised to John Hemming.
Wilmer was not unrepresented. Like the other Defendant David Hencke whose settlement is detailed in a previous article, he had lawyers funded by insurance. To be fair to Wilmer, despite his earlier behaviour he was pretty reasonable about the settlement and far less pointlessly annoying than David Hencke. Wilmer perhaps has learned his lesson. As well as the settlement Wilmer’s organisation the Lantern project has previously been stripped of its NHS funding (archive).
Since the settlements, Hencke and Esther Baker have sought to minimise them. Baker has claimed on Twitter and elsewhere that both Hencke and Wilmer settled because their insurance funded lawyers feared not recovering their costs from Hemming if they won. This is preposterous – Hemming is a millionaire who used to supplement the Parliamentary allowance from his own fortune to improve his service to constituents (archive).
Baker has also bizarrely and repeatedly stated that I am Hemming’s McKenzie Friend in her case. Although I have of course assisted John and offered advice I have never appeared in Baker v Hemming and there have been no hearings. She has repeatedly been told he has instructed a barrister (Richard Owen Thomas again) as it is important that a professional lawyer is available to cross-examine her should that be appropriate.
Hencke has also mentioned that he has not technically been subject to a restraining order but an out-of-court settlement (archive). True but so what? That is like saying – “But … but … it’s not a restraining order it’s a legally binding agreement to be restrained that is appended to a court order.” Because that makes it sooo much better. The contract can be enforced like any other contract, if it is breached, if necessary by an injunction with a penal notice.
The key issue with Hencke was the detailed agreement that no only restrains him in similar terms to Wilmer but actively requires him to remove objectionable comments by third parties from his blog. This is important because Hencke put part of his journalistic reputation behind backing Baker – a reputation now tarnished. A subtlety he may not have fully realised is that even repeating Baker’s allegations or alluding to their existence could breach the agreement (unless the publication fell within the limited exceptions agreed to).
Hencke’s behaviour in particular is bizarre. Most people would move on after an unpleasant event like this. Hencke, not unlike Scrappy-doo, does not understand when he is beaten. Legal agreements like this are a ratchet. If Hemming loses a breach of contract claim, the contract still exists and he can come back for seconds anytime. If Hemming wins, Hencke could be bankrupted or likely subject to a more restrictive injunction enforceable by a penal notice.
Surely, one would hope Hencke’s insurers have given him some advice by now. Insurance is available for a number of things. Hencke could write a blog about water gardens if he wanted. Presumably that would attract relatively low insurance premiums. Instead, Hencke appears to be choosing to tweet about a man who has already sued him once. Hemming has written to Hencke’s insurers inviting them to consider the risks this presents, his premiums and whether they wish to continue to cover him at all.
The next event in these ongoing disputes is a hearing in Baker v Hemming, which has been repeatedly moved back due to court availability but is expected hopefully sometime before May. As that case is in progress, I am limited in what I can say, except that I have corrected Baker’s inaccurate allegation on Twitter that John will be examining her.
Side kick Phillimore fails to understand this action wasn’t about cash ( see Twitter) it was about the indiscriminate trashing of a decent man’s good reputation. JH won and the Baker now stares out forlornly (as per your pic).
I have been very grateful for Sam’s assistance with these cases. The defendants should be grateful as well as this kept the costs down. I think Markel insurance paid Wilmer’s costs (and my costs) and Weightmans were acting. We are assuming that Hencke had some insurance cover for (RPC – Reynolds Porter Chamberlain) and that the insurance paid most if not all of his costs.
As insured defendants they were hardened targets. For those that say that the insurance companies were the cause of settlement as they did not wish to continue. Obviously it would have been possible for Hencke or Wilmer to have simply continued the cases themselves, but their pleadings had not tried to argue that the allegations had any truth to them. They merely tried to argue that they were not asserting that the allegations were true or I was not the target.
As you have noted Sam, have blogged separately about this case on trollexposure, however there are some issues surrounding the wider encouragement and endorsement of Wilmer and Hencke’s actions which also need examination at some stage. Julie Haines has referred to one such individual in the above comment, there are sadly many more. Their activities stretch far beyond simply belief in the endorsements of Wilmer and Hencke and go into false allegations of their own.
Belief in allegations has been proven now to be a dangerous tactic by the police and CPS and this case should serve as a wake up call to all of those who believe what they are told at face value. The police of course have to investigate an allegation however in this instance they allowed the alleged victim to broadcast enough of the detail of the allegations to the world before they’d even had a chance to investigate her allegations via various media outlets. The ringing endorsements of her claims by Wilmer and Hencke in particular always smacked of a pre-arranged agenda and especially the way in which Wilmer was trailering the Sky interview on Twitter etc.
It is also high time the authorities made firm examples of some of the worst offenders in that blind belief regard because they’ve ruined lives with their bullshit. Kudos to John Hemming and to you Sam for your assistance, as you’ve also noted I suspect this whole matter hasn’t concluded yet though.
[Note minor edits by MHN]