[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.]

Who raped Esther Baker? Baker is suing John Hemming for libel, claiming he raped her. He is counter-suing. On 15 April 2019 I sat in the High Court with John Hemming, Barbara Hewson and Richard-Owen Thomas and looked on as Baker, accompanied only by former Exaro Editor Mark Watts, was handed a costs order likely to run to about £12,000. Baker was also ordered to have a psychiatric assessment to be filed at court. During the hearing it was revealed that Baker asserts that she is seriously mentally ill. Politicians and ‘journalists’ such as Labour MP Jess Phillips and former Exaro editor Mark Watts have encouraged Baker’s allegations yet Jess Phillips is not Baker’s MP and never has been. Were Phillips and Watts right to encourage a vulnerable mentally ill woman in making unproven allegations public? Were they right to expose her to the possibility of mental injury from public criticism and controversy? Were they right to expose her to legal risks? Have Watts and Phillips helped Esther Baker … or benefited from her distress?

As my previous article recounted, Esther Baker is suing John Hemming for libel – without legal representation. He is counter-suing. The claim is not yet decided but outcomes so far are have not been good for her. Barrister Barbara Hewson’s excellent article is here for an independent perspective.

Amongst other things, John Hemming alleges Esther Baker’s lawsuit is out of time. Despite regularly insisting on Twitter that the ‘truth’ will be revealed she has point blank refused to particularise the alleged ‘rape’. This led to the judge telling her that Hemming did not know the claim he had to meet – Baker’s pleadings were inadequate. She claims in reply that her lawsuit is not out of time because she was mentally ill and lacked mental capacity to litigate for part of the limitation period.

My earlier article did not cover Esther Baker’s mental health problems, as I wanted to treat the issue sensitively and appropriately in this piece. On Twitter Baker has admitted to being, ‘psychotic’ (archive) and referred to hearing voices. In the publicly available pleadings in her case it is alleged that she suffers from auditory and ‘command’ hallucinations. In simple terms, she hears voices in her head that tell her to do things. Sometimes she obeys.

For a woman in Baker’s position to bring a lawsuit as litigant in person is challenging. Whilst the case is not yet decided, there is now significant evidence on the other side. As the Mail reported (archive) Baker has admitted that she told police her rapist had a curved penis and a birthmark on their back. Hemming has never had either (and there is a photograph of his back exhibited in evidence) but does have a distinguishing characteristic that Baker did not mention in her pleadings. So if Baker was raped at all, there are good reasons a fair minded observer might conclude that it was not Hemming. Now a court will decide.

In his opening speech to the IICSA Westminster hearings, Esther Baker’s lawyer Jonathan Price described her in moving terms (all paid for by public funding), perhaps seeking to engage the sympathy of the audience –

“She has suffered from depression, PTSD, alcoholism and other physical and mental health problems throughout her life.

Aged 13, she underwent the botched, unlicensed termination of a pregnancy, rendering her permanently unable to have children thereafter. She has frequently self-harmed and attempted suicide. Many of her relationships of all kinds have been abusive.”

Many people are deeply uncomfortable at the way troubled and vulnerable people were … befriended … by Exaro News and others. When a vulnerable, lonely and deeply unattractive person is shown attention and apparent friendship by charismatic journalists or politicians it is easy to see how they may want to tell their ‘friend’ what that person wants to hear. From the statements made on her behalf by her lawyer, it is clear that Baker falls into that category and easy to see how she could be easily influenced. When a person is seriously mentally ill they may also be vulnerable to suggestion and / or delusions.

Of course, just because a person is psychotic does not mean that they are not themselves dishonest. In this case, both John Hemming and Esther Baker have formally accused each other of dishonesty. To quote the judge, “Each side asserts that the other is not telling the truth. Therefore, one side is lying”. It is for the court to decide which – and the degree to which any party is mad … or bad.

What I saw at court was a tiny, mentally ill woman heading down a path greatly to her detriment (around £12,000 costs so far) and risking her bankruptcy and ruin on an incorrectly pleaded case. Clustered around this troubled and vulnerable person over the years since she came forward have been a succession of figures including Mark Watts, former Exaro journalist David Hencke and Jess Phillips.

Elected representatives and journalists encounter troubled people all the time. Years ago I was Labour Party Staff. Later I was an elected Borough councillor representing Haldens Ward in Welwyn-Hatfield. Now I am a Conservative.

Knocking on doors and holding surgeries, elected representatives regularly encounter the vulnerable and mentally ill. I vividly recall meeting a man who told me in detail how he did not murder his wife and was the victim of a conspiracy by British Gas, along with the security services, to destroy his life. He was clearly delusional, floridly psychotic in the medical sense. There may have been a grain of truth – some damage to a wall might have been done by a British Gas engineer.

Imagine how cruel and wrongful it would have been had I encouraged the man’s delusions. What if I had told the vulnerable man that he was all too correct, and that I needed him to give me all his money to fund me to stop the evil of British Gas? (What I actually did instead was call Social Services). More subtly, what if I had told the man that he was ‘brave’ for his fight?

The answer is simple. If I had done such a despicable thing, it would be utterly unacceptable. Even if the person’s conspiracy theory was true (or had some kernel of truth) putting a vulnerable person into the line of media fire and putting them at risk of legal proceedings would be selfish and wrong.

The question is relevant because if you look at their communications Jess Phillips’ interactions with Esther Baker are deeply troubling. Four years ago in 2015, Esther Baker began approaching politicians of all parties making bizarre and regularly changing allegations of abuse. It was obvious to them that she was not well. For example, in private correspondence between Labour MP John Mann and Hemming in October 2015, the Labour MP said that the allegations made “no coherent sense”. Mann also said that Baker’s allegations had made sense then he would have been duty bound to ensure they were investigated and it was “significant” that he had not. Mann also said that he had warned media not to treat her story as credible because a false story would be “damaging and dangerous”.

In January 2015 Baker emailed John Hemming MP with allegations that her father and a religous group had raped her. She asked for his help but he referred her to the police. Baker made the same allegations in the Mirror. In her letter to Theresa May, published in the Daily Mirror on 13 January 2015 (archive) under the pseudonym, ‘Becky’, Baker claimed that she was abused from the age of 3 or 4. The abuser was allegedly her father, assisted by members of their church.

Having waived anonymity, in her interview with Sky News on 25 May 2015 (archive) she claimed she was abused from the age of 6 and police officers guarded the abuse group’s meetings. In fact although the general public did not find out for another two years, after he declined to help Baker had accused Hemming. In recent submissions to IICSA, referred to in this determination it was 8 to ‘around’ 12.

These three statements are not consistent.

John Mann MP was right to describe the allegations as making, “no coherent sense” and if what he says is true he has behaved honourably. He spotted straight away that there was something wrong with Esther. He discouraged the media to avoid the risk of discrediting the campaign for real victims.

Unfortunately, then Labour candidate Jess Phillips was far less cautious than her colleague. Suddenly the cool girl Phillips wanted to be ‘friends’ with Baker. Literally the only connection between them is that Phillips was standing against Hemming in a General Election. Esther Baker was included in all of the following tweets. There is a flurry beginning in 2015 and then tailing off, ending in 2018 as Baker became progressively more discredited and less useful. Some of these are deeply creepy –

[1] (archive), [2] (archive), [3] (archive), [4] (archive), [5] (archive), [6] (archive), [7] (archive), [8] (archive), [9] (archive) – Here Phillips agrees to meet with Baker at the Commons. Because they have so much in common. Fwends fowever! UWU!, [10] (archive), [11] (archive), [12] (archive), [13] (archive), [14] (archive), [15] (archive), [16] (archive), [17] (archive), [18] (archive), [19] (archive), [20] (archive), [21] (archive), [22] (archive), [23] (archive).

The effect of this attention on Baker and the media is significant. The public might not have known who Baker was accusing but the media did. To have a Labour Parlimentary candidate publicly fêting Baker was to increase interest in her allegations, lend them credibility and encourage her to promote them.

Of course the information available is not limited to Twitter. Esther Baker was supported in coming forward with her allegations by a charity called the Lantern Project (archive). It is alleged that Phillips visited Baker at the Lantern Project and that during the meeting, an increase in public funding to the charity was discussed. It is important to understand the types of people who have been involved in the Lantern Project. When supporters say that the organisation has first hand experience of abuse, are they thinking of Matthew Byrne, who was convicted of the rape and torture of prostitutes (archive)? As the Lantern Project website admits, Byrne was a trustee of the charity at one point and lodged with its Chief Executive Graham Wilmer (archive).

According to the Daily Mail Byrne, “[…] repeatedly whipped his victim until her blood sprayed over his bedroom walls […]” and admitted to possessing child pornography, “[…] a total of nearly 9,000 images”. Of course Wilmer says that all happened long after Byrne moved out of his house and he knew nothing about it.

Even so, had Phillips done basic research she could have read Wilmer’s own website. Wilmer claims to be a victim of child abuse, but by his own admission (archive) the judge in his case found him “dishonest and disingenuous”. Why? Well, the supposed perpetrator confessed. However, the judge found of Wilmer that “I have no doubt that he was a deliberate party to seeking to get [redacted], the defendant, to incriminate himself by pretending that these phone calls were being made for an entirely different purpose”. Of the accused he then said, “The Crown seem to have accepted that he also comes under the description of mentally vulnerable”. The court found Wilmer had deceived a mentally ill man to get him to confess.

This is the charity and these are the people that Phillips worked with and visited in person in her bid to support her opponent’s accuser. Phillips continued to publicly associate on Twitter with the vulnerable mentally ill woman Esther Baker until January 2018. This was a few weeks after Baker had served a letter of claim in her civil case, sent to Hemming and dated 14 December 2017. It is clear that during Baker’s period of alleged incapacity Phillips was in contact with her, choosing to publicly associate with her and encouraging her.

The letter of claim was so bad, so poorly written, that Baker herself (usually a stranger to introspection) served a revised letter in August 2018, although even then when she finally filed the claim at the High Court she made a series of mistakes (including getting the fee wrong). When it eventually came before a judge he ordered her to rewrite the pleadings and pay Hemming’s costs arising from it.

Similar concerns arise about Mark Watts. He is now familiar with the evidence in the case, yet he continues to accompany and encourage Baker. According to the Daily Mail he arrived with her at the first day of the Westminster hearings of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA) (archive). Watts knows that IICSA has refused to investigate Baker’s concerns about the police investigation of her rape allegation. Mark Watts also accompanied Baker to court and appeared to advise her the day of the costs order against her.

During the IICSA hearings Watts leaked a number of documents, available only to Inquiry personnel and core participants. As a result of his close association with Baker, she fell under suspicion although the person who gave him the documents was never identified. Mark Watts was severely criticised by the counsel to the Inquiry, who stated that the leaks were not in the public interest (here – see pages 127-129). Furthermore, IICSA has now had to restrict access to documents by core participants. I include quotes below from the Inquiry transcript –

Respected satirical and journalistic magazine Private Eye covered the incident in an article. Rosie Waterhouse the author was subsequently subject to online harassment. Bizarrely, Watts actually denied the incident on Twitter (archive). He even described Private Eye as “PIE-eyed”, a nasty reference to the Paedophile Information Exchange. For Watts to be picking a fight with Private Eye seems to me to be to be an Ant v Boot situation. Watts is the discredited former editor of a defunct publication. Eye editor Ian Hislop is a respected celebrity who has led his magazine to its greatest circulation of all time, despite the decline in print publications generally.

I put these allegations to Mark Watts, Graham Wilmer and to Jess Phillips before publication and I warned them that as per Mawdsley v Guardian Newspapers Ltd [2002] EWHC 1780, prospective libel claimants are under a duty to mitigate their losses. In this case they could mitigate their losses 100% by correcting in any errors. When dealing with MPs and journalists, the duty to mitigate losses is of especial importance because they will understand the process.

Neither Wilmer nor Phillips contested the truth of any of my allegations. There is nothing to say. It is all there in black and white – on Twitter – in IICSA transcripts and in the record of the High Court case (John Hemming has applied for a transcript from 15 April 2019). Mark Watts has sent me a rambling response that I have included below in full by way of right-of-reply.

Turning back to the legal case, Phillips and Watts are in deeper trouble than they realise. Both of them have irresponsibly and improperly supported allegations that should never have been put into the public domain. They should have realised it was possible that the allegations were not factually correct. They should have considered Baker’s vulnerability. Even if Baker’s allegations were true (which is hotly disputed with strong evidence) they have been pursued in ways that put Baker at risk whilst benefitting others. Baker herself admits that her mental health has suffered due to public criticism and she now faces a costs bill she says she cannot pay.

In this country, crime reports to the police are covered by Absolute Privilege (Westcott v Westcott [2008] EWCA Civ 818). Even if they are malicious and false the accuser can never be sued for libel (although they can be prosecuted for Perverting the Course of Justice, Wasting Police Time and so on). Privilege also applies to statements made in the course of a public inquiry, such as IICSA. Statements made on Twitter and on Sky News are not usually privileged.

Phillips and Watts have very clear personal interests in the case and if Baker succeeds in filing a credible medical report stating that she lacked mental capacity at the time she initiated it by sending the letter of claim, who is responsible for the costs? The first letter of claim was sent as a Word document and the meta-data states that it was Graham Wilmer who wrote it. The letter is so badly authored that towards the end Baker makes a rambling threat to recommend to herself that she sue, “[…] I shall revert to a view to recommending that I commence taking steps […]”.

The High Court has a little known power to make a Non Party Costs Order against a person who is not a party to a case and it has wide discretion. Hemming has the option of looking into seeking costs against those who encouraged and supported Esther Baker. A court is likely to look especially harshly on individuals if the support was for their own gain and to a vulnerable party’s detriment. The total costs at present are in excess of £15,000 and will only increase as the case continues.

Whether any individual other than Baker should be liable for her costs is a matter only the court can decide. What I can say for certain is that Watts and Phillips have irresponsibly supported a vulnerable woman as she continues to take actions ruinously to her detriment, but very much to their gain. Esther Baker could have chosen to keep her allegations to herself. She could have chosen to speak only to the police and IICSA. Instead she spoke to Sky News and was called, “brave” for doing so by Phillips.

Despite police taking statements from over 30 people and multiple investigations of ‘rape’ and ‘harassment’ by multiple police forces, no one has ever been convicted of raping Esther Baker. Now she has been formally accused in court proceedings of being dishonest. In truth however there is at least one rape – the metaphorical one she has suffered at the hands of politicians and journalists who have claimed to be helping her but who in reality have much, themselves, to gain.

Right of Reply

Mark Watts has sent me two comments, which he would like me to publish in full. Although they are rambling and short on facts or argument, I have decided to publish them both in the interests of fairness –

“At the claimant’s request, I have provided informal advice to her in her defamation action against the defendant, and I am glad to say that she has been receiving pro bono professional legal advice in relation to her pleadings.

“It is for the court to decide on the merits of the case.

“Your innuendos in relation to my role in Esther Baker’s case are completely false. You provide no evidence for them for the very good reason that there is none.

“As I have pointed out to Private Eye, I am well known for publishing articles in the public interest based on a wide variety of leaked reports and evidence that authorities want to suppress. That those authorities invariably do not appreciate such reports is hardly surprising and of no concern whatsoever.

“Your mendacious blog is so riddled with malice, errors and false assumptions that I do not have the time to re-write it for you so that it is publishable.

“In the meantime, a far more pertinent question is why it is that you should have chosen to become a propagandist for a failed former MP.”

“It is appalling that you are targeting Ms Baker – who, you seem to accept, is a vulnerable witness – in the way that you are.”