[Update 22 May 2022 – My Media World Limited and Director Muhammad Butt sued over this article in the High Court in a counterclaim in case QB-2020-003936. They dropped the libel case by discontinuance, after MHN editor Samuel Collingwood Smith entered a robust defence. The effect of discontinuance is they are automatically liable for Smith’s whole costs.]

Esther Baker has made numerous allegations of sexual abuse. Now it is revealed she is under investigation herself by two police forces, one for nearly a year.

As per my previous article, Master Sullivan in the High Court has found Ms Baker’s pleadings to be deficient (revised judgement here). I feel that Ms Baker has had enough chances given her behaviour in related cases, but the Master has given Ms Baker a second chance. She has refused me permission to appeal against that decision. However, Ms Baker has been Ordered to pay the whole of my costs in the application to strike out in the amount of £1,226.80, within 14 days on the basis that her pleadings were deficient, had to be re-written, my application was consequently reasonable and Ms Baker’s opposition to it was not reasonable. Ironically, the only element queried on my costs schedule by Ms Baker was the postage, which of course would have been unnecessary had she agreed to accept service by email instead of insisting on my serving an 800+ page bundle on paper. My arguments that we were all guilty of tree murder were accepted by the court and the parties have now been Ordered by the Master to serve by email. It is also worth Ms Baker remembering that long (and by long I mean nearly 200 pages) pleadings take time to read and those costs are recoverable.

So who is next? I am presently contemplating a claim in damages against fringe journalist Sonia Poulton (who is being sued by John Hemming for allegedly repeating Baker’s allegations of sex crimes against him – allegations a court has ruled, “untrue”), Muhammad Butt and Brand New Tube. By ‘contemplating’ I mean I have served a letter of claim and propose to file the claim on CE-File either Friday or early next week. The slight uncertainty is only that verbatim transcripts have been ordered and may not be ready until next week.

The basis for my claim is simple. On 17 October 2020, Mr Butt published a video in which he used the following words – “I condone any violence against you by any Muslim”. I have sent him a letter of claim. Around the same time, Ms Poulton tweeted accusing me of Blackmail because of an email I sent to Muhammad Butt. After I sent a letter of claim and other matters, the video was made private.

I think it is quite warranted to say to Brand New Tube that Ms Poulton’s improper behaviour warrants scrutiny. Her videos include and promote anti-Semitic materials. She has hosted holocaust denier Ryan Dawson on her show. His present Brand New Tube channel is littered with anti-Semitic materials including, for example, a video that avers that the terrorist attacks on September 11 2001 were carried out by Israel. In that video, which has been downloaded for evidence purposes, Mr Dawson says that a founder of Brand New Tube, loves him and his work and tells the world about his positive discussions with said founder.

I have yet to receive any compliant response to my letter of claim. Whether or not deliberate, Mr Butt’s publication has led Hertfordshire police to install additional security measures in my home free of charge to me, and in my view gives rise to a civil claim under the GDPR.

Mr Butt and My Media World Limited (the company that operates Brand New Tube), have instructed a solicitor Blake O’Donnell of Spencer West to threaten me with civil proceedings. Ordinarily, such letters are confidential. However, the letter I have received is deficient and improper because it threatens civil proceedings but does not identify any civil heads of claim, contrary to the Practice Direction on Pre-Action Conduct. I consider that sending such a letter is incompliant with the Civil Procedure Rules and that a partner at a law firm such as Mr O’Donnell should know that. It is settled law that there is no confidence in iniquity.

If, for example, the letter said, “your email of 13 October 2020 was defamatory”, I could reply with something like, “publication is denied, the email was only sent to Mr Butt, who then published it to the world at large”. In fact, in my opinion Mr Butt is, for the purposes of libel law, quite possibly the only material publisher of the email (archive). Reference to defamation however is absent. There are rare cases where a court has sanctioned a solicitor for deficient or misleading letters of claim. Certainly this one is deficient.

The letter does threaten criminal proceedings, and of course I would never seek to stop Mr Butt talking to police. In fact I am all for it. As Ms Poulton has sought to air her allegation of Blackmail in public, I think it fair to say that I have discussed Mr Butt’s grievances at length with Hertfordshire Police, who have liaised with Lancashire Police. The police are aware of a number of reasons why I might think Mr Butt extreme and why I might feel it warranted to call him an extremist and have not sought to question me. For my protection against physical harm, I think it fair to say that police take Mr Butt’s video and other materials seriously and people supporting him online should reconsider.

In isolation, the letter might simply be seen as deficient but there does seem to be a pattern of intimidation and menace coming from Brand New Tube that needs to be addressed. To put it in context I will say this. For all my criticisms of her, Esther Baker – who is now on her sixth finding of litigation misconduct – has been able to at least identify heads of claim recognised in English law in her pleadings and her pre-action letters in the various cases she has been involved in.

Mr O’Donnell’s most recent letter to me does not reach that standard. He does not seem to get it. I got a distinction on the litigation module of my LL.M LPC (Commendation overall). I do not need to practice as a solicitor, I own an IT company. I help people in court exclusively for the public good and my charitable McKenzie Friend practice is often engaged in helping people sue or challenge their own solicitors. I have been repeatedly praised by judges and in Parliament. If he sends me inadequate or improper paperwork I will bury him in interlocutory applications and SRA process.

Mr Butt could have obtained an objectively higher standard of documents had he paid Ms Baker as lay advisor / McKenzie Friend to write his letter for him and sent it himself as litigant in person. (And hey! Then she could afford to pay the costs order!) I think Mr Butt should ask for his money back. Furthermore if O’Donnell carried out his threat without sending a compliant letter first, I could apply for wasted costs against him for breach of CPR 1. Obviously, it would be up to a court whether it granted that application.

I propose to file proceedings on CE-File Friday (or possibly early next week depending on when the transcript arrives). The value of my legal claim against Mr Butt, Sonia and Brand New Tube is £100,000. The issue fee is £5,528 and that is okay.

I consider this post to be a reasonable and proportionate response to the public allegations of Blackmail and the video condoning violence against me.