If a solicitor is dishonest they will generally be struck off, for life, even if the dishonesty has nothing to do with their legal practice (Bolton v The Law Society [1993] EWCA Civ 32). A less well known fact, and a pitfall for the unwary, is that the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) Character and Suitability Test treats discrimination the same way. Avoiding discrimination is therefore a consideration that solicitor Brendan Herbert will need to have uppermost in mind as he and his fellow directors of the Real Festival Company Limited (RFCL), which runs 2000 Trees, grapple with the challenges faced by his colleague James Scarlett’s recent decision to cancel a male musician who asserts he is a victim of sex crime (which crime he has reported to police). This morning the first letter of claim arrived at the company’s registered office, including an allegation of sexual assault and harassment of which the artist was the victim. If the company fail to deal with it in an acceptable way, all avenues are likely to be pursued.

The 2000 Trees Festival has now received the first steps towards being sued, and director James Scarlett is proposed as a named a personal defendant.

This blog is not entitled, “impotent legal threats I have helped litigants to make”. It is, amongst other things, an account of a series of protracted court cases where I have helped vulnerable litigants pro-bono or represented myself – almost without exception ending ruinously for the other side. It is punctuated by links to judgements on BAILII and court orders.

Yesterday I published news of a successful application for permission for judicial review by former MP John Hemming, a litigant in person who I have assisted. Less than 1% of applications for judicial review get permission. It is only the most recent of many successes for Mr Hemming. Who can forget the humiliation of vile former Guardian, former Exaro journalist David Hencke, who consented to a lifelong restraining agreement in favour of Hemming, in the High Court? We are now in year 7 of fabulously expensive grimdark litigation, whose only winner has been Hemming.

Right now, I am assisting a young musician, a band member who asserts he was sexually assaulted by an obsessed female admirer at the 2000 Trees Festival in 2019. I feel somewhat uncomfortable about talking, at this stage, about proposed court proceedings with such candour. However, it is necessary in order to assist the musician in replying to the attacks made on him, which he legitimately fears risk inciting violence. To the extent there is a use of private information, it is in the public interest to counter material others have placed into the public domain so the public is not misled – being (at best) unproven criminal allegations against the band member. It is only fair to point out that the other side are in the same position.

Like many male victims of sexual assault, he did not at first recognise that was what happened, but has now reported the sexual assault to police. His account is that he accompanied the woman back to her tent and after an initially failed attempt at intercourse, she attempted to physically restrain him to prevent him from leaving. This appears to have a sexual purpose and therefore fall within the very wide definition at s78 Sexual Offences Act 2003. After he ghosted the woman, she made false allegations against him over a period of years and 2000 Trees failed to deal with it in an appropriate way. 2000 Trees look likely to face difficulty with the resulting claims because their published Welfare, Security and Safety Policy (archive) is a placeholder page.

2000 Trees safeguarding policy is succinct. Although the page states it is under maintenance, it is not clear from the Wayback Engine that 2000 Trees has ever had published safeguarding or equalities policies.

The first letter of claim which arrived today, accompanied by a very rough and early draft of proceedings, deals with alleged libel, breach of GDPR, misuse of private information and negligent misstatement by the festival. The alleged perpetrator of the sexual assault and her supporters are being sued for harassment (note Scarlett is not at this time a defendant to the harassment claim). Named individual defendants include the assailant (who is presently not being named), Georgina Charlotte Middleton, James Scarlett and Aaron Britton of Knives (the claimant is still tracing his postal address, because he is too low rent to have a published agent, label or email).

Libel claims can only be issued in the High Court because of section 15 (2) (c) County Courts Act 1984, however claims under the Equality Act 2010 against service providers have to be brought in the County Court pursuant to s114 of that Act. So today, 2000 Trees / RFCL received only the first letter of claim and the first rough draft set of proceedings. More is to come because if matters cannot be settled amicably there may need to be a second set of proceedings to deal with any equalities matters.

In order to concentrate minds, an early draft of the claim form has been served with early draft particulars of claim. All addresses have been removed, as have the names of anyone who says they are a victim of sex crime.

Turning again to replying to attacks (which is a legal defence in defamation, incidentally), some of the allegations that have been made are extraordinary. Aaron Britton was talking about, “tens” of “victims”. Let us break that down. Multiple, tens, of victims. Rape victims. That police, are like, super-chilled about and have not taken action over. Aaron Britton was alleging that the complainant of a sexual assault raped at least twenty people. Aaron’s going to need luck defending that – and good luck getting signed or getting gigs whilst being a named defendant to a harassment claim. An actual claim, not one made in the court of Facebook.

Brendan Herbert is a solicitor in practice at Lacey’s Solicitors and has been a director / company secretary and shareholder of RFCL since 2007. His page on the firm’s website says that he “runs a hugely successful music festival” (archive). In that time, based on its website, it has not had a clearly published safeguarding policy despite being a venue for tens of thousands of young people. That is a legitimate matter of concern which may yet be put to his regulator, and raised in Parliament.

This article was sent in draft to Brendan Herbert and Lacey’s Solicitors prior to publication. A read receipt was sent in response, but MHN received no denials nor comments.