[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.]

It is now a court finding that former MP John Hemming did not rape Esther Baker and when she publicly accused him of doing so on Twitter, she libelled him. She must pay damages and Hemming is completely exonerated.

Esther Baker suffered a humiliating defeat yesterday when John Hemming won the central point of the libel claim between them. In a judgement handed down in the High Court, Mrs Justice Steyn ruled that Baker libeled Hemming by accusing him of rape on Twitter. Some aspects of the claim remain live, the court has yet to rule on Baker’s claims Hemming libeled her by calling her a liar and criminal but Baker has been prohibited from saying John Hemming raped her even within the proceedings. Baker also applied to strike out Hemming’s claim, relying on 168 pages of exhibits (mostly articles from this website). Her application, including her many many many complaints about me, were found to have, “no merit”.

This article will be brief because the judgement is on BAILII. The whole judgement is lengthy, and worth reading in full. A few key points –

• Baker is suing Hemming for libel and he is counter-claiming. In 2015 Baker, like Carl Beech from Exaro (who she supported on Twitter) made allegations of rape against an alleged faith related abuse group including in later versions at least two politicians including Hemming and a Labour Cabinet Minister. Baker is suing Hemming for calling her a liar and accusing her of Perverting the Course of Justice. Hemming counter-sues Baker for accusing him on Twitter of raping her and also allegedly accusing him of being involved in cult / ritual abuse.
• At the hearing on 17th October 2019 for which judgement was handed down today, Hemming and Baker applying to strike out each other’s claims and defences. Hemming also applied for summary judgement and an interim injunction. Today the judge ruled on those applications. She found in favour of part of Hemming’s application and rejected Baker’s as having, “no merit”.
• The judge held that Baker’s tweet did at least bear the meaning that Hemming raped her and the judge ruled this was libel. She granted Hemming summary judgement to this extent. Baker must pay damages – there is also an application for an injunction. It remains undecided whether the words in the tweet, “also bear an innuendo meaning that the Defendant abused the Claimant as part of a ritual cult involving Cabinet Ministers, MPs, Lords and Judges”. That is for trial.
• The judge held that Baker had deliberately dropped her defence of Truth

The judge found that Baker deliberately dropped her defence of Truth

I interject that the finding that Baker deliberately dropped her defence of Truth means that the Tweet below by Baker in support of her fundraising must have been a deliberate and malicious lie. She told lies on Twitter, for the purposes of obtaining money under false pretences. This was dishonest. People she deceived include – @elharper1400 @razzywoman and @GaryD1302.

Esther Baker falsely told potential donors on Twitter that she had not dropped her defence of Truth. This was a deliberate lie.

Turning back to the key findings –

• The judge held that Baker deliberately failed to comply with guidance given and an Order made by the judge at the previous hearing, Deputy High Court Judge Anthony Metzer QC. There is a whole section on Baker’s deliberate incompliance from paragraph 40-86. It runs to about 10 of the 29 pages of the judgement!
• Baker’s, “no merit” application to strike out John’s defence and counter-claim ran to nearly 200 pages including 168 pages of exhibits. These mostly included articles from MHN and complaints to police about me by Baker and her friends such as Jayne Senior. Baker exhibited emails from her chum Jayne Senior to a Staffordshire Police officer called Garry Bainbridge about me. Senior told police that my “sinister” articles and video made her fear for Baker’s safety. The judge has ruled that I was entitled to write about them and praised my fairness.
• There are other points. Parts of Baker’s claim survive and part of Hemming’s claim has not won summarily. These will now go to trial, however only if Baker rectifies further deficiencies in her pleadings.

My own thoughts on this focus on the disturbing length that Baker and her supporters have gone to silence any dissenting opinion. I find it deeply improper that Jayne Senior complained to police about me because of my articles and pro-bono legal advice to Hemming. Senior received a letter of claim from Hemming relating to alleged libels around Senior’s online support for Esther Baker.

This has happened with Jayne Senior before (archive), with complaints made about a whistle-blower who gave a safeguarding report about her to the press. The police complaint was rejected. Senior has complained to police about Sammy Woodhouse, who raised safeguarding accusations against her. No action was taken by South Yorkshire Police because Woodhouse’s actions were lawful. Senior may well be receiving documents from Hemming in due course as she has foolishly failed to reply to his letter of claim in libel and instead apparently tried to get his pro-bono legal advisor (myself) in trouble, with complaints that a judge has now rejected. Hemming has 3 libel wins under his belt that I did a lot of the work on. What does she think is going to happen?

Two Staffordshire Police Officers, DC Bainbridge and DCS Javid Oomer, may now face investigation over what has gone on. Complaints about their conduct have been referred to the Independent Office for Police Conduct by Staffordshire Police local Professional Standards Unit, so perhaps those officers will be quite cautious about their contacts with Senior and Baker in future. Certainly, the judge has in effect dealt with Senior’s complaints about my articles and legal advice. However, I want to be clear that the officers may be completely innocent. It is not yet clear what if anything they have said to Senior and Baker and curiously, no police reply to Baker or Senior’s emails was exhibited by Baker. We will see what the complaint uncovers but for now, no police wrongdoing has been proven. There are however, grounds to investigate what has gone on.

Jayne Senior’s disturbing contacts with police will now face scrutiny. She is right though – I will not be stopping my articles or legal support for Hemming. The judge found I am entitled to do those things.

Senior will also likely now face scrutiny. Ordinarily, even stupid and wrong complaints to police are completely immune from legal action (Absolute Privilege). However, where the complainant is a public body or official then an action may lie under the Human Rights Act 1998. Senior signed her emails to police as a manager of the charity Swinton Lock but made it clear she was a local councillor in the email trail. What action Hemming or I choose to take against Senior will depend on her future conduct but given the adverse findings about her earlier this year in a council safeguarding investigation I suggest a period of silence on her part is in her best interests.

The judge found that, contrary to Baker’s near 200 page complaint and 168 pages of exhibits, I am entitled to write my articles. She even praises their fairness.

There is indeed a “sinister” pattern of behaviour here. Baker and Senior have repeatedly made failed police complaints about critics. A few weeks ago Baker supporter Dr Jacqui Dillon complained to the SRA that I was pretending to be a solicitor and wrongly giving legal advice. This was rejected out of hand by the SRA. I have never pretended to be a solicitor. I have made my status clear. Giving legal advice is not a reserved legal activity under the Legal Services Act 2007. I am an LL.M LPC graduate who has done the exams but not sought a training contract. I have been praised in Parliament and by judges in case law for my charitable work as a McKenzie Friend. Today I was praised by a judge for the fairness of my articles!

Jacqui Dillon’s complaint about me has been rejected by the SRA.

Obviously, 3 libel actions is a lot. There is no appetite to go on a massive litigation spree but Senior, Dillon and perhaps police have continued to test their luck until it has run out. The hour is later than some people think. I cannot put it more clearly or kindly to them. Jayne Senior and Jacqui Dillon: Baker has dropped her defence of Truth and she has lost the main part of the libel claims. Your police contacts may themselves now face investigation. Continue to push this by suggesting in any way those allegations are true and you risk your homes. If you do such a thing, it may even amount to malicious communications or harassment – risking criminal prosecution.

Esther Baker’s case is now effectively rubble. Even if she wins on the remainder the entire point (she claimed) was to prove the supposed “truth!” that Hemming raped her. The exact opposite happened. Even if she now wins on every other point that will not change the finding that he did not. Baker admitted that Hemming did not rape her when dropped her defence of Truth. In effect, it is all over bar the screaming.

I would like to close out this article by praising the thoroughness of Mrs Justice Steyn DBE’s judgement. It is not visible in the HTML or PDF version on BAILII but the .docx version I am working from that she emailed to the parties even appears to have internal reference hyperlinks or similar. I would also like to praise the barrister who has helped us, Richard Owen-Thomas and who represented John at the hearing.