Chris Packham’s libel trial draws to a close

After more than two years of formal legal proceedings, Chris Packham’s libel trial has finally drawn to a close.

Regular blog readers will know that 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, and allegations that Chris faked a death threat letter to himself. 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 a press release from his legal team at the start of this trial two weeks ago and see here for Chris’s witness statement about the devastating impact of it all).

During the second week of the trial at the Royal Courts of Justice, the three defendants from Country Squire Magazine were cross-examined by Jonathan Price, Chris’s barrister.

Defendant 1 was on the stand for all of Tuesday and a small part of Wednesday morning. Defendant 2 and Defendant 3 took up the rest of Wednesday. I’ll write more about what they each said, once the judgement has been received.

For clarity, Defendants 1 & 2 were claiming dual defences of ‘truth’ and ‘public interest’ in relation to the alleged libellous material that was published by CSM. Defendant 3 claims that he wasn’t an author or editor of the alleged libellous material and that his re-tweeting of the articles didn’t amount to serious harm to Chris’s reputation.

During the trial, Defendants 1 & 2 withdrew a number of their defences as it became apparent that they didn’t have the evidence to support their allegations against Chris. The Honourable Mr Justice Saini described events as “a moving feast” and took time to clarify the changeable positions. It was hard to follow but my understanding of what was withdrawn and what remained is as follows:

• The allegation that Chris wrote a fake death threat letter to himself was “unequivocally withdrawn”.
• The allegation that Chris dishonestly took part in writing a press release relating to the death of a tiger called ‘Simi’ – the ‘truth’ defence was withdrawn but the ‘public interest’ defence remained.
• The allegation that Chris was dishonest when fundraising for the Wildheart Trust to support the rescue of five tigers from a Spanish circus – the ‘truth’ defence and the ‘public interest’ defence remained.
• The allegation that Chris was dishonest when he re-tweeted an article relating to the burning of peat on two grouse moors during COP26 – the ‘truth’ defence was withdrawn but the ‘public interest’ defence remained.
• The allegation that Chris was dishonest when fundraising for the Wildheart Trust during Covid (alleged insurance fraud) – the ‘truth’ defence was withdrawn but the ‘public interest’ defence remained.

Closing arguments were heard on Thursday from the legal representatives of Defendants 1 & 2 (Nicholas O’Brien) and of Defendant 3 (David Price KC), as well as from Jonathan Price. Mr Justice Saini reserved judgement and told the parties that he anticipated handing down judgement in writing before the end of this month.

Once the judgement has been announced, it is expected there will be a further hearing to determine costs.

The second defamation case that Chris is bringing, against Fieldsports Channel Ltd and one of its journalists, Ben O’Rourke, is ongoing. In June 2022, Fieldsports Channel Ltd published an article and an accompanying video, accusing Chris of dishonest and unethical behaviour. They claimed that Chris wrote a fake death threat letter to himself and that he dishonestly claimed that it was sent to his home by an anonymous member of the shooting and farming community (see here).

There should be an update on the status of this case shortly, given the “unequivocal withdrawal” of a similar allegation by Defendants 1 & 2 in the CSM case.