The logo of the so-called Freedom of Information Act Centre of which Mark Watts is ‘coordinator’.

On Monday, I wrote about the first preliminary hearing in the case of Baker v Hemming. In the hearing, Esther Baker was ordered to rewrite her claim, have a psychiatric assessment and pay costs to be subject to the detailed assessment procedure. At the hearing Baker was unrepresented but assisted by Mark Watts, former Exaro editor, who sat behind her and appeared to assist as a lay advisor. Now he has complained about myself, Barbara Hewson and Simon Just to the judge because we blogged about it.

It is curious that a man who claims to campaign for transparency like Mark Watts, who ‘coordinates’ for the ‘Freedom of Information Act Centre’, is suddenly not-so-keen on information getting out when he is the subject. There are three blogs that Watts complains of. My previous article here, barrister Barbara Hewson’s blog and Real Troll Exposure.

In the United Kingdom, most libel cases (unlike the Family Courts) are open to the public and it is perfectly legal to report on them. Providing the reporting is ‘fair’ and ‘accurate’ it even attracts qualified privilege. Watts’ complaint accuses all three of us of being ‘unfair’. What moved me to write this brief post however, was the fact that his complaint is … unclear. I have no idea why he thinks Barbara and Real Troll Exposure have been unfair. His only comprehensible complaint about my blog is that he is described as a blogger. I do not see how that is harmful to him, and the FOIACentre’s ‘News’ section to me looks like a blog attached to a niche research business.

Put another way his complaint is … inadequately particularised. Much like Esther Baker’s claim in which he advised her. I may be running some articles on Mr Watts in due course but for now I include his complaint below. In the spirit of Freedom of Information, of course.

“Dear Mr Smith,

I refer to your e-mail of April 15, which I have only just seen, in which you link to your blog on Monday’s hearing before Anthony Metzer QC.

You are evidently unaware that, in order to attract qualified privilege for a report of court proceedings, it must be both fair and accurate. Your evident failure to understand that basic requirement leaves you remarkably exposed. Your failure is all the more serious given that you have been acting, as you admit, as a legal adviser to the defendant, Mr Hemming, and indeed sat with his team in the court during Monday’s hearing, along with the barrister Barbara Hewson.

I am aware that two other supporters of the defendant, namely Ms Hewson and Simon Just, have also published accounts of Monday’s hearing that also fail to be fair and accurate reports (ie https://barbarahewson.org/2019/04/18/one-side-is-lying/ and https://trollexposure.wordpress.com/2019/04/15/costly-2/ respectively)

I have copied the judge in Monday’s hearing into my response to you because I think that he ought to be aware of what you and the defendant’s two other supporters have published. I should say that I have sent this e-mail entirely at my own initiative (without consultation with the claimant) because your (and their) conduct is of such serious concern. I note that it is inconceivable that the defendant was not aware of what you (and the others) were intending to do.

Your blog says that “both sides were supported by bloggers”. While you (and others) have indeed blogged about the case in support of the defendant, I am unaware of anyone having blogged about the case in support of the claimant. Your article goes on to imply that I am, like you, a blogger who has blogged about the case in support of the claimant, whereas I am in fact neither a blogger nor have I written about Monday’s hearing at all.

Regards,

Mark Watts”