Press release from Chris Packham’s solicitors at Leigh Day (25th May 2023):
Chris Packham wins High Court defamation trial and is awarded £90,000 in damages
The High Court has today ruled in favour of environmental campaigner and naturalist Chris Packham CBE in his defamation case brought against Dominic Wightman, editor of Country Squire Magazine, and one of the magazine’s contributors, Nigel Bean. The court accepted the account of a third defendant, Paul Read, who claimed he was a mere proof reader.
The Court has awarded Mr Packham £90,000 in damages against Mr Wightman and Mr Bean.
The case, heard between 2 and 11 May 2023 related to nine articles, ten social media posts and two videos. The court ruled that the allegations made in these materials were defamatory and untrue. The allegations included that:
- Mr Packham dishonestly raised funds for The Wildheart Sanctuary in relation to rescued tigers, which he falsely said had been mistreated
- Mr Packham lied about peat burning on Scottish game estates during COP26.
- Mr Packham dishonestly raised funds for the sanctuary during the covid pandemic while concealing that it would receive an insurance pay-out
During the trial, Mr Wightman and Mr Bean withdrew their truth defence in relation to the second and third of these allegations. They maintained a truth defence in relation to the first allegation, but the court determined that they “fail[ed] to come even close to establishing the substantial truth” of that allegation.
The Court concluded that: “Mr Packham did not lie and each of his own statements was made with a genuine belief in its truth. There was no fraud of any type committed by him in making the fundraising statements.”
Mr Wightman and Mr Bean also argued that they had a reasonable belief that publication of the allegations was in the public interest. The court ruled that this defence also failed “by some margin.”
The judgment states that, “rather than approaching the task with an investigative mind, these defendants targeted Mr Packham as a person against whom they had an agenda”. In particular, following receipt of Mr Packham’s initial legal complaint, the articles published by Mr Wightman and Mr Bean “gave way… to increasingly hyperbolic and vitriolic smearing of Mr Packham, with further unsubstantiated allegations of dishonesty regarding peat-burning and the Trust’s insurance gratuitously thrown in”. One of the articles complained of mocked Mr Packham’s manner of speaking, and several made offensive references to his autism.
During the trial the court heard that Country Squire Magazine published 16 articles mentioning Mr Packham in the four years before the first article complained of in the legal case, and a further 93 articles were published in the three years following. Mr Packham had not been approached for comment before the publication of any of the articles containing allegations about him, as is journalistic best practice. Furthermore, there was sparse documentary evidence that any of the allegations had been properly researched to ensure their veracity.
Mr Read withdrew his reliance on the defences of truth and public interest when he instructed separate legal representation shortly before trial, and his case (which the Court accepted) was solely that: (i) as a mere proof-reader, he had insufficient involvement in the articles; and (ii) his retweets of the defamatory allegations had not circulated sufficiently widely to have caused serious reputational harm to Mr Packham.
In awarding Mr Packham substantial damages against Mr Wightman and Mr Bean, the High Court accepted that their campaign “would have misled and agitated vocal and sometimes violent groups”, who “posted threatening and vile material about Mr Packham and his family online”.
The Court also held that the men had used this case as a way of introducing offensive and wholly unsubstantiated allegations to smear Mr Packham, and to “scare [him] off… from seeking recourse in a public hearing for the libels”.
In addition to the articles, social media posts and video complained of the in the legal case the defendants had also claimed that a death threat received by Mr Packham had been written by himself. This caused particular anguish to Mr Packham as it implied that he had lied to his family and friends, as well as wasting police time. The court held that Mr Packham did not write the death threat letter, concluding that “even a cursory examination of the handwriting in the death threat and comparison with a true sample of Mr Packham’s handwriting demonstrates obvious differences between the two.”
The court had also expected the handwriting expert instructed by Mr Wightman, Mr Bean and Mr Read to have been “horrified… and to have unequivocally withdrawn their evidence” when it emerged in November 2022 that their report, which concluded with certainty that Mr Packham wrote the death threat, had in fact analysed samples of his accountant’s handwriting. However, Mr Wightman, Mr Bean and Mr Read did not withdraw the allegation when this error was pointed out to them. Moreover, the court held that Mr Wightman was instrumental in procuring ostensibly third-party statements repeating the serious allegation, in “The Packham Papers” and in an article by Fieldsports TV. The death threat allegation was only formally withdrawn by Mr Read shortly before trial, and by the other defendants only on the third day of trial.
Chris Packham said:
“Every day many thousands of innocent people are victims of online abuse and hate crimes. This can be racially, religiously or politically motivated. It can be generated in regard to gender politics, environmental beliefs, body shaming. This vile part of modern life ruins lives, livelihoods, reputations, it disrupts young peoples’ educations, causes incalculable mental health problems and tragically causes people to take their own lives.
“As it stands the criminal law is simply not there to protect us from such hate – something that must change. The current governments ‘Online Safety Bill’ is plodding along. In the meantime a tiny minority of victims are able to take civil action.
“In the offending articles and tweets Mr Wightman and Mr Bean accused me of defrauding the public to raise money to rescue tigers from circuses, defrauding the public by promoting a crowd-funder during the COVID epidemic, lying about the burning of peat during COP26, writing a death threat letter to myself, and elsewhere of bullying, sexual misconduct and rape. They also accused me of faking an arson attack at my home and repeatedly called upon the BBC to sack me.
“In a full and frank vindication of my innocence the court has found that “Mr Packham did not lie and each of his own statements was made with a genuine belief in its truth”.
“Most egregiously all three defendants had advanced an allegation that I had forged a death threat letter to myself, an allegation that they managed to disseminate to the mainstream media.
“The Court has held that I did not write the death threat letter, concluding that “even a cursory examination of the handwriting in the death threat and comparison with a true sample of Mr Packham’s handwriting demonstrates obvious differences between the two”.
“Thank you to my followers for your unswerving support and belief in my honest crusade to make the world a better place for wildlife, people and the environment.”
Carol Day, Solicitor at law firm Leigh Day said:
“Mr Packham is grateful to the judge for his careful deliberation of the issues and is delighted with the judgment, which completely vindicates him of any fraudulent motivation in raising funds to rescue the ex-circus tigers, alongside further unsubstantiated allegations of dishonesty regarding peat-burning and insurance fraud. This case should provide a strong deterrent to anyone who sets out to gratuitously smear someone’s character simply because they don’t agree with their views.”
Mr Packham is represented by partner Tessa Gregory and solicitor Carol Day of Leigh Day and barristers Jonathan Price and Claire Overman of Doughty Street Chambers. Leigh Day instructed specialist costs counsel Benjamin Williams KC of 4 New Square Chambers for the hearing on costs and consequential matters on 25 May 2023.
ENDS
The full judgement can be read/downloaded here:
As you might expect, I’ve got some thoughts about this case that has dominated so much time and energy over the last two years. I’ll come back to it in the coming days once the dust has settled.
For now, I’d like to thank all the blog readers who have supported Chris throughout this hideous period – you’ve been brilliant, thank you so much.
UPDATE 27th May 2023: A message from Chris Packham after his libel victory in the High Court (see here)
Raptor Persecution UK 
Fantastic result justly deserved.
So Pleased made my day well done all involved
It’s really brilliant to see Chris cleared of any wrongDOING
Shame on these detractors hopefully they’ll get landed with
hefty costs. I don’t always agree with his views but I would never resort to that vile behaviour
Very good news. Is there another case against the Fieldsports Channel also coming up?
Great result, I’d like to think, never in doubt, but everyone knows that is never the case. The 90K does seem paltry considering the allegations and pain they have clearly caused.
A rightful verdict but so tragic that Chris has had to go through such mental anguish and suffered a hate campaign which he has so bravely endured. He has my total respect.
Exonerated. I expected nothing less. Perhaps Chris will sleep a little easier now. He has unswerving support from many and this will continue. Chris has integrity and his supporters never doubted his honesty.
Well done to Chris, his legal team, his family, friends and supporters. This is justice for all those people who have to suffer the unwarranted vitriol meted out by extremely vicious and cowardly people.
I’ve sat half asleep and watched quite a bit of late night poker on the telly down the years. But this is by far both the greatest and the worst (and the cruellest) example of “airballing” I have ever seen! Well done to Chris and team for calling their bluff. Now just be sure to add up every single piece of paper, every staple and every minute of thinking that was expended on this case, when calculating your costs.
Pity damages was only £90 000. I hope full costs were award. Well done Chris and his team.
“I hope full costs were award.”
The very last two paragraphs of the judgement (page 58) say:
“XI. Conclusion
206. Mr Packham’s defamation claims against Mr Wightman and Mr Bean succeed. Mr
Packham did not commit any acts of fraud or dishonesty. I will enter judgment for damages against Mr Wightman and Mr Bean in the sum of £90,000.00. I understand that they do not oppose injunctive relief.
207. The claims against Mr Read are dismissed. I will hear further argument in relation to
additional relief including orders under section 12(1), and section 13(1), of the Defamation
Act 2013, and *in relation to costs* ”
Section 12(1) of the Defamation Act:
“12 Power of court to order a summary of its judgment to be published
(1)Where a court gives judgment for the claimant in an action for defamation the court may order the defendant to publish a summary of the judgment.”
Section 13(1):
“13 Order to remove statement or cease distribution etc
(1)Where a court gives judgment for the claimant in an action for defamation the court may order—
(a)the operator of a website on which the defamatory statement is posted to remove the statement, or
(b)any person who was not the author, editor or publisher of the defamatory statement to stop distributing, selling or exhibiting material containing the statement.”
“Injunctive relief” means that the defendants are required to stop ‘doing something’ – presumably repeating the defamations.
Praise be British Justice! Well done Chris and team! Hopefully many other people will take note and stop their vitriolic abuses. Let’s start teaching our children from an early age how to respect others, even if we disagree with them!
Very pleased and relieved. The sheer nastiness of an element of the blood sports following has been publicly exposed by this case.
It is to be hoped that the wider population will have seen what we’ve known for years, which is that hunting with hounds and driven shooting is a rotten cause, fit only for the scrap heap
Justice for animals is done. (For a change).
Well done Chris1
It must be such a relief Chris; heartfelt congratulations.
Let us hope that your brave stand will make all the other vile haters from the wildlife killing ‘industry’ think twice before spewing their bile and lies against folk who simply seek a better countryside and world.
“Mr Bean” ….you couldn’t make that up!
Never in doubt. My congratulations to Mr Packham. Xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx
Very pleased to read of the outcome of this legal case. Well done to everyone involved.
I was truly delighted and overwhelmed when I read this yesterday. Respect to Chris for seeing this through. It must have taken a huge toll on him and his family. No one should have to suffer this and I hope legislative changes will make a real difference.
My heartfelt thanks go to him and all his supporters who are fighting for wildlife.
On a happier note, really looking forward to Springwatch next week
So pleased, great result and hopefully some lessons learnt
So glad to hear that Chris won the case – by the sound of it by a country mile. You have my admiration, Mr Packham.
A true victory for truth, fairness and justice. Well done to Chris for standing up to these people and well done to British justice for delivering just that.
The BBC website covered it very well yesterday (when the judgement was published) but it is now ‘buried’ in local Hampshire News:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-65707076
Is the BBC ‘correct’ in classifying this as ‘local Hampshire news’? Was the defamation restricted to Hampshire?
Really pleased for Chris, Charlotte and Megan and I hope that’s the end of the abuse you have all suffered.
I’m disappointed by the Paul Read judgement, given that he shared tweets and did not distance himself from ‘Other Offensive Allegations’ written by Wightman.
H/t Ruth, for bringing it to a wider audience x
Thank goodness justice was done!We may disagree on some things in life but I’d never set out to destroy a person…. sadly the human race has lost tbe plot and there are no boundaries on respect,kindness, and responsibility! Well done Chris….
Brilliant news. So very, very pleased. Well done Chris!
Really pleased for Chris. I’m sure he’ll be suitably happy for the upcoming Springwatch. Fantastic!
Congratulations to Chris, Family and Team. They are an inspiration.
So good to see these xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx get their come uppance. Well done everyone on the legal team.
If he’d lost the case then the CA et al would be wallowing in joyous schadenfreude. Now he’s won you’d think they’d have the good grace to reflect on their own role in whipping up hatred toward Chris Packham. Not a chance! Instead via their chums at the Daily Mail, they’ve launched another attack on him for talking to ‘Just Stop Oil’ protestors as part of a Channel 4 programme on peaceful protest.
The right result. Chris is a man of integrity and honesty and passionate about wildlife.. That clearly came across in the trial and the judgement was fair. Hopefully this will put a stop to the awful abuse and threats.. Hopefully..
Good result, thanks to Chris Packham for standing up for wildlife.
Hopefully this will stop others from publishing lies and ruining people’s lives
Fantastic news! We never doubted you Mr Packham. You can always hold your head up high for the excellent conservation work and good causes that you highlight. These nobodys leave a legacy of nothing good for Nature or humankind.
Good work here.
But 90.000£ is a low figure in a tory mp expenses sheet. I would have expected damages to have been 10 x this figure.
Hi Lance,
There’s a really useful article here explaining how judges calculate libel damages:
https://www.holdthefrontpage.co.uk/2021/news/law-column-money-money-money-how-the-courts-calculate-libel-damages-and-why-its-important/
Also, it’s worth remembering that Chris’s costs award (made against Defendants 1 & 2) was made on what’s known as an ‘indemnity’ basis, at the judge’s discretion, rather than the ‘standard’ basis. The Honourable Mr Justice Saini explained to the court that this was a “clear case” for indemnity costs due to what he described as the “inappropriate and oppressive” conduct of Ds 1 & 2 during litigation correspondence with Chris’s legal team at Leigh Day. (Read the written judgement for a flavour of that conduct).
My understanding of what this means in real terms is that defendants who have an indemnity costs order against them cannot now rely upon the trial costs budget that was set previously (which effectively constrains the amount of costs awarded under proportionality rules, and won’t come close to the actual costs spent).
In this case, Chris’s legal team can now seek to recover costs in excess of that budget constraint that are closer to the amount of the true cost of bringing this legal action. The minimum, interim amount due is £400k and that is due within 28 days. If the money isn’t paid, or an agreed payment plan isn’t put into place, or the defendants default on payment, this will trigger further action through the courts.
Thanks. That’s good to know:-)
Congratulations Chris,although the result was obvious to all right minded people you can never be sure when dealing with this type of xxxxx.
I hope you sleep well tonight.
High 5 Chris! Just discovered what I thought were sparrows residing in a usually derelict birdhouse are a family of nuthatches. So chuffed, observed the chicks’ beaks waiting for the parents to bring the food. Anything that I could provide to assist? I think they have opted for the house because it is next door to an insect hotel and next door but 1, bees have squatted in another birdhouse.Lol. So glad you have won though I’m sure its insignificant compared to what you have been through. Best wishes, love your contributions to wildlife broadcasting. Tania.
“So chuffed, observed the chicks’ beaks waiting for the parents to bring the food. Anything that I could provide to assist?”
Nuthatches will feed mealworms (NOT maggots!) to their young… but you’ll need to be fairly quick or they will have fledged:-)
Congrats to Chris & all involved in the fight-sighs of relief on hearing the right result. Christine in Stirling x
I’m just so very very pleased about the outcome but all this must have taken a very big toll on Chris, Megan and Charlotte. They have behaved with dignity throughout and I cannot imagine how they have coped with the truly horrendous behaviour they have, and particularly Chris continue to endure, just because of his views on the environment. Anyway onwards and upwards. Thanks also to the Wild Justice team for all you do.
Top job! And good 2c, truly rippingFABtastic news! Hopefully Chris and all on his side get back every penny of their costs, go4it! What? BIGTIME, n make them pay for what they tryed to do, it’s truly shocking!!