This is a brief update. The Witchfinder has agreed a settlement with Jacqui Dillon, the second Defendant in his claim in damages for Libel and Harassment. The terms of the settlement are not confidential. The Claimant Samuel Collingwood Smith will “waive his right to damages, costs and to an injunction”. The 2nd Defendant Dillon in exchange has entered into a lifelong restraining agreement not to repeat the meanings complained of in the action. Her Twitter account is presently suspended but if it is ever reinstated she must also delete the tweets complained of.

Jacqui Dillon has settled the claim brought by the Witchfinder.

Dillon has not admitted liability nor that her tweets bore the meanings complained of. However she has agreed not to repeat the words of the tweets, or words bearing the same or similar meanings to the following –

• That the Claimant is the operator of the @legalaidloser Twitter account;
• That the Claimant is a paedophile and harasser of child sexual abuse victims;
• That the Claimant’s allegation that the Second Defendant’s tweet referring to Esther Baker as a victim libelled John Hemming, as set out in the Claimant’s email of 10 October 2019, was a dishonest attempt to intimidate the Second Defendant;
• That the Claimant is a habitual stalker, who is mentally ill and stalks as a result of that mental illness; and
• That Amy Lynn Lee Hartzler, the lead singer of Evanescence, has told the Second Defendant that the Claimant stalked her.

Dillon was represented, to my mind wisely, by media lawyers Atkins-Thomson (both formerly of Schillings) and not Mohammed Akunjee who previously advised her whilst not being formally instructed. In the ratio of Zenith Logistics Services (UK) Ltd & Ors v Coury [2020] EWHC 774 (QB) it was held at 59 that, “[…] the Schedule forms part of the “order” within the meaning of CPR 5.4C, and is subject to the default rule that it is publicly accessible […]”. In the interests of transparency I have uploaded the entire consent Order here.

I am grateful to Amy Lynn Lee Hartzler, the lead singer of Evanescence, for the helpful and pragmatic approach taken by her lawyers in denying any contact with Dillon, a fact I included in my Amended Particulars of Claim. For my part I regret that she has been troubled on this matter and have no plans to vex her about it further if this can be avoided.

The parties will bear their own costs. However, I did all my own work so my only costs were the court fees. What fees if any Dillon paid are unknown. There is no point seeking to bankrupt Dr Dillon who has a history of severe mental health problems and lives in modest accommodations in Hackney.

Esther Baker, contrary to all the other people in all the other libel cases relating to her has decided not to settle and has instead filed and served a 172 page Defence and Counterclaim. This weighty bundle includes 45 pages of pleadings, 2 pages of forms and 137 pages of annexes. The Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) at Practice Direction (PD) 16, 1.4 state – “1.4 If exceptionally a statement of case exceeds 25 pages (excluding schedules) an appropriate short summary must also be filed and served”. Needless to say Baker did not serve a summary.

The case between your author and Baker remains undecided but your author intends to apply for strike out after he has finished wading through the Reply to Defence and Defence to Counterclaim. As a result he has suggested Baker not bother with the summary now until after the application is decided.