[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.]

Just past 2:23am on 3rd February 2020, Esther Baker emailed Staffordshire Police and John Hemming to complain I had violated her anonymity as a rape victim under the Sexual Offences Act 2003. This is of course ridiculous. Baker’s anonymity is the most waived there ever was – she has commented on Sky News, the Guardian, the Daily Mail and many other publications. Why does she keep putting in these absurd complaints? If her public court filings are correct, it is because Staffordshire Police are encouraging her.

On 17th December 2019 Esther Baker filed her Re-Amended Reply to Defence in the claim Baker V Hemming. By way of brief explanation, Esther Baker was an abuse accuser who alleged that a group of VIPs and others ritually abused her. No charges have been brought. She has attempted to sue one of the VIPs, former MP John Hemming for libel for calling her a liar. He counter-sued for libel over her rape allegations. Much of Baker’s claim was struck out last year and she lost the counter-claim entirely, with Mrs Justice Steyn ruling her allegations of VIP ritual abuse, “untrue”. Baker is now supposedly under police investigation.

A few small parts of Baker’s claim continue as to whether she lied or there was some other explanation for the untruth such as honest mistake or mental illness, although some more of Baker’s claim was struck out at a hearing on 30 January 2020. The pleadings are available to the public without permission under CPR 5.4C. Under CPR 5.4C (1) (a) any non-party may obtain a copy of the pleadings (but not attachments) in the case as of right without the court’s permission so the pleadings are not confidential. They may be reported upon.

One passage I find particularly chilling is this one –

“[…] The Claimant’s liaison officer at Staffordshire police who has recently become involved in the case again due to the Defendant’s behaviour and admissions, has repeatedly stated to me that as far as Staffordshire Police are concerned the Claimant is regarded as a victim of crimes and not a suspect […]“

Esther Baker’s liaison officer is Detective Constable 4163 Garry Bainbridge. The officer running the purported investigation is, DCS Javid Oomer. If Bainbridge has told Baker that Staffordshire Police regard her as a “victim of crimes and not a suspect”, acting as liaison for Oomer, then that completely prejudges the investigation that the police are supposedly conducting. More importantly, it ignores the multiple recent court rulings against her.

I therefore believe there is grounds for an investigation into police bias and / or failure of duty. I put it no higher than the lowest ‘Chase Level’ meaning. Baker has made a formal statement in court. However, she has in the past been incorrect or mistaken – including of course in her serious allegations that John Hemming raped her. It is possible that Baker is mistaken, or that police have some reasonable excuse. DC Bainbridge might not have been fully briefed on the court rulings, for example. Ms Baker, who hears voices, might have misunderstood his position due to her mental health difficulties. Because of that, I do not say there is anything more than grounds for investigation.

In November 2019, the County Court found that Baker had engaged in racist harassment of a proven child abuse victim and awarded said victim £12,500 in damages – details are in my full article here. The stalking included specific, imminent, violent threats as this extract from the judgement shows –

The Protection from Harassment Act 1997 is unusual because it creates a crime and a statutory tort with identical definitions. So, although the ruling against Baker was a civil finding it amounted to a civil finding that Baker was a perpetrator of the crime of harassment. Indeed the behaviour appears to meet the definition of stalking.

Baker’s allegations of rape against Hemming have been found to be, “untrue” by Mrs Justice Steyn. Although Baker has been saying this is a mere technicality, it is not. She “deliberately chose” to drop her defence of Truth to Hemming’s counterclaim.

Accepting court judgements is not optional for police. We live in a democracy not a police state. Oomer and Bainbridge are of different ethnic backgrounds to the victim. If police have not accepted the judgement, then that is institutional racism. The only thing I will say in their favour is that the transcript of the judgement only became available in the last week or so although they were made aware of the general content last year.

Similarly, police were made aware of the ruling by Steyn J relating to me. Baker had complained of my articles to police and in an application to the High Court nearly 200 pages long. Steyn J dismissed the complaints as having, “no merit” and to the limited extent she commented on my work she said,

“127. Finally, much of the Claimant’s second statement focuses on blog posts regarding this case written by Mr Smith. The evidence is that he has used publicly available materials in his blogs. He is entitled to report on public hearings which he has attended. Although the Claimant may regard his blogs as biased against her, it is notable that Mr Smith has made clear the limits of decisions he has reported. For example, in his blog entitled “Baker v Hemming: Esther Baker Ordered to Pay Costs!”, Mr Smith fairly noted: […]”

Police were also sent the ruling of Mrs Justice Steyn in relation to Hemming.

If it is true as Baker says in her court pleadings that police have been telling her they regard her as a victim not a perpetrator that shows serious bias. It is not acceptable. It shows disrespect for the court findings and the rule of law. If that is true then in my opinion the two officers concerned should not be in the investigation or indeed the police force at all.

Evidence adverse to police continues to mount. Today, John Hemming will be sending Baker his evidence for trial in her libel claim. He will be sending her his witness statement. He will also be sending her a witness statement by his alleged accomplice, Esther Baker’s father. I have had a long talk with this much maligned man – whose evidence is devastating for police. He has given permission for general collateral use of his statement including for this article and for John’s complaint and claim against police. Because I have permission per 32.12 (2) (a) I can disclose extracts –

It should be mentioned at this point that as far as I am aware Bainbridge and Oomer were not decision makers in the original investigation – and should only be questioned for what happens now, not then.

Of course, some might doubt the word of Esther Baker’s father. After all, she has accused him of vile crimes … except … he has corroboration – from the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS). In their documents which passed into the public domain at the hearing on 30 January 2020, they say –

Obviously, we are left with an incredible situation – a change in Baker’s account of the date and method of the alleged abortion. Yet the police investigating at the time did not seem to act on what seems to be obvious evidence that Baker’s allegations were untrue. In short far from being a complex or difficult investigation, the police have been barely able to move without tripping over reasons to suspect that Esther Baker Perverted the Course of Justice.

If Baker had an underage abortion, as she claims, that would be by definition evidence of abuse as she could not have consented to sex at the time. So when the CPS say there is no medical evidence of abuse there must be no record of an underage abortion nor signs of same at all. That or the CPS statement is inaccurate. So when Esther Baker through her lawyers spoke of a botched, back-street abortion … it simply never happened.

As a result of alleged statements made by DC Bainbridge, I have made a further complaint of possible bias and failure of police duty, amongst other things. Julian Ziemann, the Principal Officer of Staffordshire Police Professional Standards Department says it is being considered and I will receive a response within 28 days. Once again however, I put my allegations no higher than saying that in my view there are grounds for investigation.

Police have moved generally slowly on this matter. In 2018 police had to be forced to agree to investigate Baker. Yet Hemming and Baker’s father still wait for an outcome –

Meanwhile, John Hemming met with his barrister Nick Stanage last night with a view to protective proceedings being drafted and issued, ideally, next week. He has now notified the solicitors acting for Staffordshire Police and is waiting for them to state whether they have instructions to accept service. If they fail to reply in time, the Chief Constable will be served. The claim for £10 million will have an issue fee of £10,000 plus £528 for the mandatory and prohibitive injunctions Hemming is seeking. It is no casual undertaking. It will be accompanied by an application for a stay (issue fee another £255).

This means that the court proceedings will be hanging over the police whilst internal investigations are completed, potentially appealed and thoroughly examined. They will most likely last years, meaning the High Court claim will quite likely be stayed and will be looming over careers and reputations for all of that time. Police officers and Staffordshire Police generally need to understand that their careers, homes and very liberty is at risk.

I asked police two questions –

1. Do police admit or deny Baker’s statements made in Court that Bainbridge told her that they regard her as a victim not a perpetrator?
2. Do Staffordshire Police respect and accept the court verdicts referred to in this article?

Astonishingly, police refused to comment, saying,

“In line with the Police (Complaints and Misconduct) Regulations 2020, Staffordshire Police wrote to you on 6 February 2020 to advise that you would be notified as soon as possible, and within 28 days, of a decision about the allegations raised in your correspondence dated 3 February 2020. We will not be responding to the questions raised in your blog below due to ongoing proceedings.”

It might well be reasonable to not answer questions on some things. However, the County Court harassment case is over. There has been a judgement. Baker says she has filed an appeal and to be fair has shared a photograph of an Appellate Notice sealed in time – but case judgements are usually reported when they happen regardless of appeal and until that appeal happens – police need to accept them. To my mind, Staffordshire Police should in this case have responded that they accept the County Court ruling and the victim has their full sympathies and support. The failure to do so is quite simply racist.

The investigation has been a shambles. Baker’s father says that he learned of the No Further Action decision in 2017 from the BBC. Neither he nor Hemming has confidence in the police fairness or indeed, clarity on what police are doing at all. It is time that the officers, all the officers, on the case were changed and Staffordshire Police started to take Baker seriously as a perpetrator and take those she accused seriously as potential victims.