[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.]

Staffordshire Police believe Esther Baker is a criminal. Recently, I reported some of her Twitter posts as harassment directed at myself and (indirectly) former MP John Hemming. Upon review, a crime number was assigned which can only happen if an officer considers on balance of probabilities that an offence was committed (police email below). I am far from the only complainant, with far more serious allegations outstanding. How is it that Baker has not yet been interviewed over the many allegations against her?

Last week the BBC reported (archive) that Staffordshire police are conducting an ongoing investigation into Baker over the far more serious allegations of Perverting the Course of Justice and Harassment of John Hemming. The investigation is currently with Detective Chief SuperIntendent Javid Oomer and frankly, a large number of powerful people are unhappy about the police, the speed of the investigation and Oomer’s attitude. To put this in context, Mr Hemming first reported Baker in 2015!

In 2015, Esther Baker accused her father, as well as former Liberal MP John Hemming and a former Labour Cabinet Minister I shall not name of being part of a large, ‘faith related’ abuse group (she disdains the word cult). Around 30 people have been interviewed including 91.5 hours with Baker herself (source). No charges have been brought. There is no corroborating evidence. In fact Baker claimed Hemming had distinguishing features on his body and penis. Photographs and medical evidence show they are absent. Yet Baker continues to publicly accuse Hemming despite having been made clearly aware of the evidence he is innocent. Her activities include approaching his acquaintances including random Liberal Democrat councillors face-to-face and other celebrities and politicians online.

The Labour Lord Baker accused had had prostate surgery two years before the earliest alleged rape. Based on dates provided by Baker, he was as old as 74 at the time of the alleged ‘full’ rapes. At best he was likely to have been impotent. It is also likely he had even had his testicles removed, which was a common treatment for those requiring repeat surgery at the time. Baker was in contact with and appeared to corroborate Carl Beech – another VIP accuser. Now he has been convicted for making it all up (archive), as well as for possession of child pornography.

Baker has made an attempt to sue John Hemming for libel for calling her a liar. He is counter-claiming. At the last hearing, her claim escaped strike out but she was ordered to re-write the Particulars of Claim and made subject to a costs order. A detailed report of that hearing is available here on this site and another on barrister Barbara Hewson’s blog (archive). Hemming has now filed an application to have Baker’s revised pleadings struck out. As she has failed to pay the costs order, he has petitioned to make her bankrupt.

Baker told the Daily Beast (archive) that the Labour Lord had raped her. She claimed to police that she was familiar with every inch of her rapists’ bodies. She claimed, wrongly, she saw distinguishing characteristics on Hemming he never had. She claimed she had been raped by a Labour Lord who in fact had genital surgery. Crucially, in the civil claim, when the man’s surgery was put to her, she did not admit nor deny but instead responded that she ‘had no knowledge’ of the facts. Really? It was a crucial error. One could understand Baker saying for example that the person she thought was a Labour Lord was intact. She could have suggested that her allegation was a sincere statement but maybe she had a mistaken identity. She could have said when he committed the rape he was fully functional and intact and perhaps the surgery was overstated. But how, given her previous statements, can she have ‘no knowledge’?

Thanks to Baker and her supporters at Exaro, millions of pounds have been spent and innocent lives turned upside down – far more even than the Carl Beech case – he at least did not obtain public funding to be represented at the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA). Statistically, somewhere, children are languishing in the clutches of leering paedophiles at large because of all the money and police resources wasted by Staffordshire police on the investigation. It is entirely possible that children have been raped because of the resources squandered on Baker’s allegations.

The man currently in charge of the investigation is Detective Chief Superintendent Javid Oomer, a man who does not seem to understand that unless he takes decisive action over Baker his career and reputation are likely to be in jeopardy. Let us imagine, for example, he finds some reason in September to mark the investigation for No Further Action (NFA). On 15th October, Baker is facing a bankruptcy hearing unless she can find just over £12K cash to pay her debts. In the libel claim Hemming has once again applied to have her claim struck out as well as for an injunction preventing her from so much as whispering about him for the rest of her life. That is listed for 17th October. There will be a tabloid feeding frenzy over the hearings and the question on everyone’s lips will be to ask what Oomer has been playing at?

Of course, that will be the least of his worries because of the multiple persons actively currently contemplating legal action against Staffordshire and individual police officers as well as the tabloid sharks circling with his name in the frame. What of Baker’s father – a much maligned man? Ironically I am told that police warned him that he should be careful what he says publicly because of all the civil litigation about. Has it not occurred to them that he may have consulted no-win-no-fee solicitors about a misfeasance claim?

Hemming is enraged at the police failure to protect his family. It is clear that the effect of the police conduct has been to treat him in an inhuman and degrading way and to put his Article 2 Rights (Right to Life) at risk. There has been a conviction of a man for threatening to kill Hemming, yet Baker is regularly allowed to post inflammatory allegations on Twitter. Hemming says that police officers have repeatedly told him, off the record, that they believe Baker should be prosecuted. For example, Detective Superintendent Amanda Davies allegedly told Hemming that she had requested an officer spend a day at the CPS discussing charging Baker, saying no further interviews were needed and they already had enough material from Baker’s interviews as a victim.

When he met with Assistant Chief Constable Emma Barnett in June last year, Hemming was led to believe that IICSA had been told (off the record) that police were considering charging Baker. This may explain the alteration to a Determination by the Chair of IICSA around that time.

If police have believed all along that Baker is lying, why did Davies publicly call Baker a ‘victim’ and speak of her making ‘disclosure’ (archive) back in 2017? Sources close to Hemming suggest Davies is at risk of an enormous personal claim in damages. If successful, that could leave her bankrupt and disgraced. Certainly, Hemming successfully sued David Hencke for calling Baker a ‘victim’ – Hencke settled the case by agreeing to a lifelong restraining agreement. In my opinion Hemming should have sued Davies at the time of that statement. Staffordshire police should beware now of any public statement defamatory of Hemming or Baker’s father.

Either Barnett and Davies lied to Hemming or police are acting very, very strangely indeed. Which is it? Obviously, Hemming’s lawsuit is likely to begin with a letter of claim, pre-action disclosure applications and a police complaint accompanied by a demand for IOPC referral. If the police do not take action they will be ripped apart in the media and in court.

I put a draft of this article to police, with four questions –

1. Do you dispute any fact alleged in the article?

Police did not dispute any alleged fact.

2. Did Amanda Davies tell John Hemming she thought Esther Baker was lying and that police had spent a day with the CPS briefing them on the case with a view to charging?

Police did not address that point, but did not deny it.

3. Why did Staffordshire Police describe Baker as a ‘victim’ in 2017?

Police did not address that point, but did not deny it.

4. Given the physical characteristics Baker identified her attacker as having and Hemming’s lack of them, why did Amanda Davies refer the file to the CPS to consider prosecuting Hemming?

Police did not address that point, but did not deny it.

A spokesperson for Staffordshire Police provided the following quotation –

“Following a complaint made to officers, the file is currently with Staffordshire Police’s Head of Crime who has identified further lines of enquiry which are being progressed prior to the consideration of next steps.”

Ordinarily, I would not name a spokesperson. However, I received this utterly inappropriate and snarky comment –

“I am sure you understand that this is an ongoing investigation and it is important that this matter is reported in a responsible way to avoid prejudicing the outcome of the case.”

– so the spokesperson was Lisa Benbow, the Head of Corporate Communications. How dare she? The reason the reporting is harsh and detailed is that the police have been asking for more time for 4 years. Everyone has run out of patience. Legal papers are being drafted. The police need to act or assume that individuals may spend years as defendants to litigation and the subject of public scrutiny, possibly also Parliamentary scrutiny.

Certainly Davies has serious questions to answer. Given the knowledge of Hemming’s (lack) of the distinguishing characteristics identified by Hemming how can police justify referring him to the CPS in 2015? Hemming alleges police told him they knew the allegations were false but had to pursue them due to media pressure.

Another possible claimant against Staffordshire is ‘Z’ – the proven abuse victim currently suing Baker in Newcastle County Court in another separate case. I myself am also far from satisfied.

Oomer’s failure to act is so obviously ridiculous that he risks public disgrace and scrutiny of his family and roles outside the police. How can he be a face of Police Cricket, for example, if he becomes the face of police failure in the Baker case?

Finally, since Javid Oomer seems to need all the help he can get, anyone with information can sent a polite, respectful email with the information to javid.oomer@staffordshire.pnn.police.uk.