After the recent tragic death of Alec Holowka, most gaming journalists have had the decency or at least self-preservation instinct to allow a period of graceful silence to fall. Holowka was a game developer who was accused of sexual abuse and imprisonment by Zoe Quinn. Not long afterwards, his former co-workers claimed they could ‘corroborate’ the allegations. Shortly afterward, he killed himself. When facts emerged to show the accusations likely false and the ‘corroboration’ anything but, an uneasy silence fell. Except, apparently, for Wired’s Laurie Penny (@PennyRed) who backed the Holowka allegations and has been attacking the girlfriend of another accusee on Twitter (archive) for daring to defend him. I am making a public offer of pro-bono support to Alexis and Lottie to start suing people.

Penny Red attacks Lottie Bevan for daring to dispute the Twitter mob allegations.

It is worth briefly looking at the Holowka case. Per MHN previous coverage here and here a casual legal analysis of the so-called corroboration show it was anything but. The co-workers could back up that he was hard to work with and unstable – but not that he imprisoned Zoe Quinn and assaulted her by penetration. Then, historic tweets emerged that directly contradicted Quinn’s account. She had been going out to meetups whilst supposedly imprisoned and engaged in a last minute game crunch with Holowka, at a time when in her account she was allegedly fleeing in fear.

Quinn’s historic tweets were revealed by articles on Post Millennial (archive) and MHN. Quinn has also been credibly accused of abuse by four unconnected men and is facing questions as to the whereabouts of $85000 Kickstarter money. She promised to deliver her Kickstarter by 2017 and it is now 2019. The allegations against Holowka seem to coincide with awkward questions being asked of Quinn at a time when her income from Patreon has fallen to a fraction of what it was a few years ago.

Alexis Kennedy is another victim of allegations of vaguely defined sexual misconduct. It is important to remember Alexis lives in Britain, in England and his accuser was a permanent employee of his previous firm, ‘Failbetter Games’. In the United Kingdom she therefore had the right to sue him in the Employment Tribunal. In the Tribunal there are no court fees, no need for a lawyer and once a minimum evidentiary threshold is met the burden of proof is reversed in Sexual Harassment claims under s136 Equality Act 2010. There is no cap to the damages in discrimination claims. Damages for hurt feelings alone (before other losses are considered) can be up to £44,000. If the Defendant wants a lawyer they (usually) are not entitled to recover the costs even if they win.

So naturally, Olivia Wood the alleged victim decided to bring Tribunal proceedings to get justice in an environment that bends over backwards to help victims of workplace harassment and throw money at them </sarcasm>. Of course not. She brought her claims to the High Court of Twitter, thereby avoiding such inconveniences as the need for evidence and an impartial hearing.

For his part, Alexis Kennedy has publicly denied allegations of wrongdoing (archive) and his girlfriend and co-worker Lottie Bevan has backed him up (archive). For this, Laurie Penny has actually attacked her on twitter, gratuitously accusing her of, “using the language of feminism to pathologise women”. I consider that to be abuse. Penny doubtless knows that the Twitter mob cares little about the truth of allegations, facts or logic and has frequently thrown its weight behind questionable or flat out wrong causes. It is a term calculated to intimidate Bevan and foreseeably likely to lead to her being harassed. It is abuse and Laurie in this context is the abuser.

The author is a law graduate (LL.M LPC Commendation) and although I have not practiced as a solicitor I have ten years experience as a pro-bono McKenzie Friend, having been repeatedly been praised by judges and in Parliament. Most recently, I helped former MP John Hemming in his successful libel claims against David Hencke and Graham Wilmer. Hencke and Wilmer were represented by top solicitors, media defence lawyers RPC and Weightmans. Both men settled, agreeing to make donations to charity in lieu of damages and consenting to life-long restraining agreements. Wilmer apologised and paid costs, whilst Hencke has a somewhat stricter restraining agreement. Hencke is not even allowed to call Esther Baker a ‘victim’ in the context of Hemming and has to remove certain posts from his blog on request. Forever. This is what Hemming said in an article in the Birmingham Sunday Mercury –

John Hemming seems happy with my work in the Hencke and Wilmer cases.

In my experience helping for charity, in the Court of Protection, the Family Court or the High Court I have encountered many people with true and harrowing accusations of abuse. I have also encountered false accusers. One thing nearly all the truthful people have in common is a desire for justice and scrutiny. Nearly all of the false accusers seek to avoid it. Even when false accusers start court proceedings, they will seek to delay, resist disclosure and adjourn.

Olivia Wood has not sought a remedy in a real court and if her allegations are true that is contemptible. What about other potential victims of the perpetrator? Should he not be exposed? I completely understand that Alexis Kennedy and Lottie Bevan do not want to sue – they fear the costs risks and being attacked for ‘silencing’ women. That is also completely wrong because it is not what happens.

Journalists will complain of libel threats right up until the issued claim form gets stamped with that red court stamp. Then they will mostly shut right up because the rules of their profession require them not to prejudge court proceedings. Issuing proceedings silences many of the twitterati – decent people will wait on court proceedings whilst others fear joining them as a Defendant. A successful verdict confirms that silence and more – it provides vindication. In the UK and Europe, the GDPR can also be used. Allegations of crime, such as sexual assault, are sensitive personal data subject to strict controls meaning future employers will not be allowed to rely on allegations that have been proven false.

Furthermore, fear of costs is a two way street. Usually, costs of a case are assessed at the end. A cheap libel case usually costs around £70-£100K to each side and more expensive cases can exceed 7 figures. Libel insurance for freelance journalists often covers no more than £20K. So if you have pro-bono support, the Defendant (Laurie Penny, for example, in this case) has to pony up £50-£80K upfront if they want to defend a case. Often such people talk tough and then settle for the simple reason that their insurance covers the cost of a few lawyer’s letters but not a trial.

I doubt the claims against Kennedy – I think such allegations should be determined by a court not clickbait journalists and Twitter virtue signallers. I also think that Laurie Penny’s conduct towards Bevan is fast approaching criminal harassment contrary to s1 and s2 Protection from Harassment Act 1998, even if it is not quite there yet. So here it is: I got a distinction on my litigation exams. I have been in four libel cases. Three we won, one is pending. I have contributed to libel case law in this country.

I hereby offer a free pro-bono opinion and if positive, ongoing assistance, to Alexis Kennedy and Lottie Bevan if they want to investigate suing Laurie Penny or Olivia Wood for defamation or harassment. If they moved quickly we could have a letter of claim out this week and proceedings filed in the High Court next week or the week after. I urge them to consider it.