Chris Packham will return to the High Court today as his libel trial continues into its second week.
Chris is taking libel action against three individuals associated with Country Squire Magazine, who are accused of writing defamatory material about him, notably accusations of dishonesty and fraud in relation to the rescue of a number of tigers from a Spanish circus. The defendants are Dominic Wightman (defendant 1), Nigel Bean (defendant 2) and Paul Read (defendant 3).
Chris has vigorously denied all the allegations and maintains that the defendants have embarked on a campaign of online hatred and abuse which has caused him anguish, anxiety and distress (see here for last week’s press release from his legal team).
The first week of the trial included opening remarks from Chris’s barrister, Jonathan Price (see here), followed by cross-examinations by Nicholas O’Brien (the barrister for defendants 1 & 2) of Chris, his partner Charlotte Corney, and two expert witnesses who gave evidence on the process of the tiger rescue and the welfare issues for tigers in circuses.
Chris’s witness statement detailing the effects of the defendants’ alleged behaviour is a shocking and sobering read (see here).
At the end of the cross-examinations in week one, the judge, the Honourable Mr Justice Saini, asked Mr O’Brien (acting for defendants 1 & 2) for clarity on a number of their allegations about Chris (defendant 3 is represented separately and is not relying on the same defences). Mr O’Brien told the court that his clients were “unequivocally withdrawing” one of their allegations (as they had no evidence to support it) and were withdrawing the ‘truth’ defence for two further allegations and were instead relying solely on the ‘public interest’ defence. More on that soon.
This week the three defendants will have their opportunity to provide evidence in court and they will be cross-examined by Jonathan Price.
Mr Justice Saini, acutely aware of the heat generated by these proceedings, advised both the claimant and the defendants that it would be “unwise” and “unhelpful” for them to comment about the trial on social media whilst the case is still in progress. However, reporting restrictions were not imposed.
The crowd funder set up to support Chris with his legal fees for this and one other libel case he’s pursuing (against Fieldsports Channel Ltd) is still open for those who’d like to help. Defamation proceedings are expensive and there is no guarantee that costs and damages will be fully recovered. Donations (and messages of support) can be made here.
Please note: making defamatory or even derogatory remarks about the defendants in these libel actions is unhelpful and actually counter-productive. Comments on this blog will be closely moderated (more so than usual!). Far better to show your support for Chris by participating with the crowd funder!
Raptor Persecution UK 
I stand totally with Chris and have donated already. I wish him well and hope that justice will prevail in his favour. I feel, and hope that this case will highlight how totally meaningless and wrong it is to try and take down a person who clearly loves and respects nature. Thank you Chris for all you do for wildlife everywhere.
Wishing Chris all the best and hoping he is successful in winning his case!! Bless you Chris for all you do to help wildlife!!!
Wishing Chris every success in his case. Hoping that justice and truth will prevail.
We desperately need more people like Chris to stand up for wild life that is unable to defend itself against a worsening change in our environment and attitude.
Enough is enough. I hope Chris is successful in suing these xxxxx individuals into oblivion.
Wishing you Chris the best of luck. Many, many people support you. I can’t imagine the stress and anxiety that you are experiencing; it must be horrendous.
I hope (and feel confident) that justice will prevail and you will soon be free of the worry that this case has generated.
Best wishes.
Sue.
Re: Please note: making defamatory or even derogatory remarks about the defendants in these libel actions is unhelpful and actually counter-productive.
How can they be defamatory if they’re true?!? I don’t get it
It’s the Law, it doesn’t need to make sense.
Actually it is to prevent the jury reading or hearing comments not made in Court under Court rules. It particularly applies to news reports, but covers all media. This might stop a case.
One may wonder whether the shooters’ organisations might be looking for such examples, which could so be used.
Unless you were sure every negative word you publish about an individual is true, it is better not to say /write anything in oublic. You can (within certain other restrictions, like hate speech, stalking etc) give an opinion about a class of people in general. If a judge points out how unhelpful an action may be, why would you want to risk being unhelpful to Chris’s case? Personally, I don’t know the defendants and I have only Chris’s side of the story. I trust him and donated to the crowdfunder, but even trusted friends have a partial view of events, like anybody else. Libel cases are notoriously hard to pursue successfully and defendants will always use anything negative they can find against the plaintiff. My late father, a noted solicitor, always warned clients against starting libel actions. You never know what might come out in court.
I do hope that when this & any other libel action is successful, as it will surely be, that it will be given more mainstream media attention to show those, ..people…, in their true colours, not just to those of us already convinced, but to the usual uninterested, or uninformed, & hopefully some on the same side of the fence as them. Wishing Chris & Wild Justice all the best.
Withdrawing the truth defence and relying on “public interest” should be fatal to the Packham 3’s position given how they have vilified Chris in pursuit of their lies about him.
At the very worst Chris could be accused of a culpable mistake in raising funds before the insurance payout came to fruition but animals still had to be fed and cared for. Any decent man as Chris is would have done the same thing,
Dear RP, you posted a link to 50+pg Chris’ statement, request we read at least pg.31 re horrific events the family endured; as I turned radio off, sole attention focused I skimmed 1st couple pgs, scrolled to pg31-end, THEN Re-read, scrutinizing every detail, in its entirety. My 3rd read included breaking off, to further explore related articles, people, blogs, videos etc; wanting as full a picture as possible to avoid bias.
My heart utterly broke for Chris P & family. I can honestly say I don’t subscribe 100% to all of CPs beliefs, but do with most. Whilst only a few I may not, I DO however understand them; as such I also agree strongly with the moral reasons he states for this action, and imo it has been very fairly brought, argued, countering cruel allegations & continues to do so, with dignity, respect and grace.
Having perused all the info available to the public, especially re this particular situation, I stand firmly 100% behind Chris on this.
A good ex of focusing on facts to form opinion vs personal bias, ie ones “like or dislike” for a celeb personality or their views.
Even if I were the opposite, and instead i disagreed with CP on most things, I would still be on his side for this case. Based purely on fairness, fact and records.
It’s a shame others can’t put aside personal vendettas and try to look as the BIG picture, and like Chris says, COME TOGETHER for the greater purpose…he definately has 100% of my support!