Esther Baker was been handed a life-long restraining Order by Mrs Justice Steyn over her allegations against John Hemming. She agreed to lifelong restraint for her allegations against me.

The latest judgement in the turgid saga of Smith v Baker is out on BAILII. As readers will remember, I sued Esther Baker and most of her defence, as well as much of the counterclaim, has been struck out. She settled in a lifetime restraining agreement – a Tomlin Order, and I am still receiving my costs back in monthly instalments via High Court Enforcement Officers (High Court bailiffs basically). Some of the counterclaim limps on. There has been a favourable judgement on meaning. Judgement here.

By way of explanation, there is often a dispute in libel claims about meaning. The Claimant wants the court to find there were really damaging claims. The Defendant, that the claims held weaker meanings, or to find meanings that are easier to defend as Truth, Honest Opinion and so forth. So in this case the judge had a pre-trial held by written submissions, to decide meaning, what were allegations of meaning and fact, and what was defamatory at common law (i.e. what might be harmful).

Baker wanted some strong meanings. She did not get the. For example, about publication 1 (still up here) – one meaning she wanted was to say she was violent,

“The claimant has used the word “psychotic” in the common use of the word, which implies to ordinary people that the defendant is violent, a danger to the public, delusional about everyday and past experiences and not credible”

“the natural and ordinary meaning is that Jess Phillips MP and the defendant are directly linked to a person who “raped and tortured prostitutes”, and that this was a meeting held at the Lantern Project (a charity supporting survivors of sexual abuse)”

The judge disagreed –

“The meaning of these passages is:
a) Ms Baker has a mental illness and, as a result of this, she has been making allegations which are not true.
b) Her untrue allegations are dangerous and may discredit the campaign for real victims.
c) No attention should be paid to her when she makes them.
When these meanings repeat points from others, they adopt them or convey them as being true.
Meaning (a) is a statement of fact. Meanings (b) and (c) are expressions of opinion.
The statements meaning that Ms Baker has a mental illness are unequivocal. The precise diagnosis (e.g. psychosis) is not, and is not stated as a fact.
The meanings I have found are all defamatory.
In context, statement (viii) does not suggest that Ms Baker is like a person who has been convicted of the rape and torture of prostitutes. It means that her association with the Lantern Project does not repair her credibility. It is not in itself defamatory.”

So one part of her claim falls there – the bit about the Lantern Project not defamatory. The other bit I have to prove some defence like Truth, Honest Opinion, or public interest (or some other defence). But, if I prove part of the Truth and what is left is not enough to cause damage or serious harm then she fails too. This is set out at s2 (3) of the Defamation Act 2013 –

“If one or more of the imputations is not shown to be substantially true, the defence under this section does not fail if, having regard to the imputations which are shown to be substantially true, the imputations which are not shown to be substantially true do not seriously harm the claimant’s reputation.”

Ms Baker has admitted to mental illness in the pleadings – she even tried to kill herself when the voices told her to. So job done for that bit. Her defence of Truth in my claim in these proceedings was struck. So job done for that bit. Plus Master Sullivan of course made clear Baker could not backtrack on the findings her allegations against John Hemming were, “untrue” or the findings in the harassment claim against her by the anonymous child abuse victim. So she makes multiple very serious untrue allegations.

Next I have to prove a causal link … but I don’t think that matters. If I can prove serious mental illness and a history of making appalling untrue allegations, the causal link I do not think is enough to cause serious harm. Plus, alternative explanations for the false allegations like malice are worse.

As to the opinions at (b) and (c) I have to prove the existence of any fact on which an honest person could hold the opinion. Job done as above, I think. Looking at a further summary judgement on a lot of this. There are like 12 other publications complained of where the outcome is similar. The full judgement is here on BAILII.

An interesting facet is that I only challenged some meanings but the judge has gone further and determined all the meanings wholesale of all the publications as far as I can see. It is largely favourable tactically, so I am happy.