Sonia Poulton has issued an inflammatory and misleading ‘official statement’ on the dispute. Extracted still used for the purpose of criticism and review.
So, there was a hearing today in Hemming v Poulton. The hearing began with Sonia agreeing to pay me £279 in costs. I then left, and wanted to wait until after the hearing to write about the other matters. Under the Civil Procedure Rules, a large of documents passed into the public domain. The hearing was an application by John Hemming to strike out or summarily judge Sonia Poulton’s pleadings as deficient. Poulton, to some extent, agreed and cross-applied to amend. Defences she still relies upon however, are an allegation she cannot be sure that views on her collaboration with Shaun Attwood were not purchased.
At the outset, I should say that I am a party to these proceedings and so my point of view is naturally selective and focused on my best case. However, since Sonia Poulton has been tweeting all day, a few balancing facts are in order.
Are you donating to Sonia? Did she tell you it is all about Truth? #Truth? Really. Check out this from her defence –
An extract from Sonia Poulton’s defence asking him to prove that the views on her video collaboration with Shaun Attwood are not fake.
If I were a professional journalist I would rather settle than run this as part of my defence. To be clear, Sonia expanded on this in a witness statement that was used in the hearing and therefore became public domain under the collateral use rule –
Sonia has no hard evidence anyone faked views, but speculates Shaun did because some of his videos had relatively low views for his subscriber base.
Sonia raises a number of other defences including Public Interest and Truth. However, she is not trying to prove that John actually committed a crime against Baker, only that Esther Baker said he did, which position John argues under the repetition rule. So if Sonia wins, no one will know anything more about Baker’s allegations than what was decided in Baker v Hemming, that is, Baker’s allegations are untrue.
Sonia is counter-suing myself, John and a third man for harassment. The ‘harassment’ amounts to articles criticising her and also complaining about her lawyers. Although it would have been possible to apply to strike out, I take the view that a trial would be beneficial. I therefore did not oppose the amendments to pleadings save one matter that I consented on. Sonia caved on that before the hearing. It is possible to plead total rubbish and still survive a strike-out application. Esther Baker’s defence to the harassment claim brought against her by a child abuse victim survived until trial. Then she lost on nearly every count.
This case continues. Sonia’s having to pay me costs does not mean I win the case. However, given the likely revelations at the trial, she is likely to regret bringing it even in the (I hope) unlikely event she does.
John was represented by Matthew Hodson of Hardwicke Chambers, extremely skillfully. One amusing point is Sonia’s failure to do basic research. In her fundraising campaign and in her pleadings she argued her statements were in the public interest because Mr Hemming was a politician who had intentions to stand again. As Hodson points out –
“It should be noted in passing that the Claimant is not intending to stand for parliament again. He has made this public on repeated occasions and it has been reported on by the Daily Mail and on the Claimant’s own website. Again, the Defendant is quick to make statements about the Claimant without verifying their accuracy (and that same mistake as to the Claimant’s parliamentary intentions is repeated in her pleadings in this case).”
Not only had Poulton not bothered to check up to date facts about the cases in her video before being interviewed, she did not even check her facts when defending being sued. She is supposedly a professional journalist. Even if she wins, the facts are unlikely to assist her career – a career in which even David Icke has been somewhat critical of her professional conduct. Ms Poulton has turned on her former collaborator but, if she had such suspicions, this supposedly ethical and fearless journalist did not share them with her viewers until being sued. Nor is this aspect of her defence mentioned on the fundraising campaign.
Judgement on the applications was reserved.
“Sonia’s having to pay me costs does not mean I win the case. However, given the likely revelations at the trial, she is likely to regret bringing it even in the (I hope) unlikely event she does.”
👀
“Although it would have been possible to apply to strike out, I take the view that a trial would be beneficial.”
👍
Not going to comment here about today’s hearing in detail.
Let’s just say I found it hilariously stupid that a barrister was still prepared to run with an allegation that could be readily debunked by a very swift Google search that he could’ve made during the lunch break.
Also all the bluster about “public interest” was blown out of the water today, it’s not about public interest in CSA but whether there is a public interest in repeating allegations that have been found to be untrue. Justice Steyn’s ruling therefore is paramount, regardless of what Poulton believes or doesn’t believe, a court has ruled that Baker’s allegations are untrue. Therefore once Poulton found out about the ruling [and I seriously doubt it was as late as Feb 2020] she had a moral and professional duty to correct her previous material. She has amended other videos in the past or put comments on them to correct.
I think the Master today summed it up very, very neatly early on: “Ms Poulton does not wish to be seen to abandon Ms Baker”.
“Ms Poulton has turned on her former collaborator but, if she had such suspicions, this supposedly ethical and fearless journalist did not share them with her viewers until being sued.”
👀
RTE on April 30, 2021 at 5:27 pm: “I think the Master today summed it up very, very neatly early on: “Ms Poulton does not wish to be seen to abandon Ms Baker”.
Mark Watts would understand that. Because he wouldn’t want to be seen to abandon Esther Baker either. There can often be special bonds with first borns. Though Esther has rejected Sonia Poulton on twitter at times.
Ooops: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7653641/John-Hemming-wins-libel-damages-woman-unproven-allegations-child-sex-abuse.html
5th November 2019
The few timid bleats of faux outrage directed towards MHN’s informative and helpful video, are unsurprisingly only to be found on the timelines of the same people who have spent almost a decade jointly making threats and causing harm, alarm and distress to Sonia Poulton’s victims.
They all know where to find out what a genuine threat looks like. On account of the fact that all of their own direct threats and veiled threats have been pasted and stacked sky high on the websites of their numerous victims. For use in future prosecutions and civil cases.
craftymuvva’s needed their own server. Which is possibly why she has not stuck her head too far above the parapet during the latest round.
Blaming her current reluctance to overly participate on twitter on the possibility of her being attacked by people supporting the claimants.
*Irony overload.*
@ Sue Themall on May 2, 2021 at 5:33 pm
Nobody could make this sh*t up 😁
The cooker and vacuum cleaner salesman said the video frightened him and he found it intimidating.
Then proceeded to attack and intimidate someone known to have stated he is to be a witness in various court cases.
Irony of their bullshittery is that they are hindering any defence for Poulton by proving a point that was made by Hemming’s barrister in the hearing last week.
Namely, that there is an organised campaign against Hemming and ANYONE who has expressed even remote support for him or who has written about the case, so all they are doing is proving that point for Hemming by their own conduct.
Thinly veiled threats against Sam and another person online are also likely to be brought to the attention of the court at some point too for the same reasons.
You certainly couldn’t make this sh*t up unless you were a very warped sitcom writer or writing an episode of “The Twilight Zone”.
All of the individuals commenting and jumping to, incorrect in my opinion, conclusions about the case are also risking contempt action because SOME of them have very clear long running connections to Poulton and some were clearly acting [such as ObjectUK] at her request.
Remarkable considering that all she had to originally do when Attwood folded was apologise.
Another thought occurs logically and purely theoretically: if she is so convinced that Baker’s version of events is true, despite all the evidence to the contrary, why has she not given HER evidence to support that to the police or the previous court case? Does she know something that the police should know and has she deliberately withheld the info OR is it because she is scared [as the judge remarked] to be seen to “abandon” Baker. As Baker is currently under investigation etc for PCJ offences [according to various reports] then Poulton’s own actions [considering the long running connections between the two women] could then end up in her getting dragged into allegations of a conspiracy to PCJ. As said, only a theory.
As usual, time will tell.
@ Rory Port He believes he is untouchable since Brexit.
I noticed he and craftymuvva have stopped sharing the fruits of their microfiche experiences on twitter. Possibly having realised the VIP names and scandals they dig up are so old, their followers don’t know who they were, and most of them would be barely remembered by their grandparents.
Or perhaps they have stopped information gathering because they are now of an age where sitting in damp library basements for hours on end was starting to affect their joints.
Despite heavy trawling of social media to find someone, anyone, to make a complaint of stalking to the police (to further compound the damage being wrought upon one of the current claimants for another court case set for 2017) only one person was found willing to take such a risk. Esther Baker.
Her credibility was zero, but desperate times called for desperate measures. She was under the impression she would be integral to a stalking case, but found she was only there to make the numbers up. (So to speak. More on that at another time.)
The preferred people for making complaints having refused or backed down, after realising that whereas telling lies and making false accusations on twitter, or making false allegations to previously groomed police constables had been a walk in the park, walking into Crown court to commit perjury, when years of threats and intimidation could be easily retrieved by the Defence, was a risk only few were prepared to take.
The likely possibility of having to leave the comfort of a sofa to bathe and dress in a suit before catching a choo choo to Court, is said to have prevented some people volunteering to lie about being stalked.
[Redacted by MHN]
The state of that update 😁
@ Rory Port on May 9, 2021 at 3:29 pm
Deserving of an ‘Exhibit’ number in some cases.