Pearson v Chief Constable of Essex Police & Anor

B e f o r e :

MR JUSTICE CHAMBERLAIN ____________________

____________________

Lorna Skinner KC and Beth Grossman (instructed by Patron Law) for the Claimant Richard Munden (instructed by Weightmans LLP) for the First Defendant Godwin Busuttil (instructed by Capsticks LLP) for the Second Defendant Hearing date: 24th March 2026 ____________________

HTML VERSION OF APPROVED JUDGMENT ____________________

Crown Copyright ©

Mr Justice Chamberlain:

Introduction

The claimant, Ms Allison Pearson, is a journalist, author and columnist for the Telegraph Media Group. She brings a claim relying on a number of causes of action, including libel, against the Chief Constable of Essex Police ("the Chief Constable") and Roger Hirst, the Police, Fire and Crime Commissioner for Essex.

The libel claim against the Chief Constable is founded on versions of a press statement published on the Essex Police website on 13, 16 and 21 November 2024. The libel claim against Mr Hirst is founded on words spoken in a radio programme first broadcast on 17 November 2024 and an article first published on the Conservative Home website and on the website of the Police, Fire and Crime Commissioner for Essex on 18 November 2024.

The claim was issued on 22 July 2025. On 1 October 2025, Collins Rice J ordered the determination of preliminary issues relating to the libel claim, namely:

In accordance with the established practice, I reviewed each of the publications complained of with the aim of capturing my initial reaction before reading the parties' submissions and hearing oral argument. In the case of the radio broadcast, at the invitation of the parties, I did so by watching a video of the interview, which had been uploaded to YouTube.

The preliminary issues do not include whether the statements made by Essex Police, which did not name the claimant, would be understood to refer to her. That issue is likely to require evidence not currently before me. It will have to be determined at trial.

The legal principles

The principles to be applied when determining the meaning of words alleged to be defamatory are well-established. They were recently and pithily summarised by Steyn J in Berg v Jones [2026] EWHC 564 (KB) :

There is a more elaborate distillation of the principles by Nicklin J in Koutsogiannis v Random House Group Ltd [2019] EWHC 48 (QB) , [2020] 4 WLR 25 , at [12], which I also bear in mind.

Three gradations of defamatory meaning were identified in Chase v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2002] EWCA Civ 1772 ; [2003] EMLR 11 , at [45]:

These gradations are not, however, to be applied like a straitjacket; intermediate or alternative meanings are possible: Brown v Bower [2017] EWHC 2637 (QB) , [2017] 4 WLR 197 , [17] (Nicklin J).

The test for whether a meaning is defamatory at common law was explained in Corbyn v Millett [2021] EWCA Civ 567 , [2021] EMLR 19 at [9]:

Background facts

The following background is taken from the claimant's Particulars of Claim. They provide some context to what happened next. They are not, however, to be taken as agreed and they are not relevant to the meaning of the statements I have to consider. I have not had regard to them in reaching my conclusions on the issues for determination.

Ms Pearson co-founded British Friends of Israel after the Hamas attacks on Israeli civilians on 7 October 2023. On 11 November 2023, there was a pro-Palestinian march in London. Ms Pearson participated in a static counter-demonstration at which she says Metropolitan Police officers declined to be photographed with her group. On 12 November 2023, at another pro-Palestinian demonstration, police posed for a photograph with a child wearing a red keffiyeh obscuring his face and carrying a mock-up of a Palestinian flag. Ms Pearson wrote articles and posted on X criticising what she perceived to be an inconsistent approach on the part of the police.

On 16 November 2023, Ms Pearson quote-tweeted a post originally published by another account. The post contained a video of two male supporters of the political party Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf, flanked by police officers and included the caption "The Police have certainly picked a side Disgraceful". In her quote-tweet, Ms Pearson added the comment: "How dare they. @metpoliceuk Invited to pose for a photo with lovely peaceful British Friends of Israel on Saturday police refused Look at this lot smiling with the Jew haters. @toadmeister". A few weeks later, she deleted the post.

Nearly a year later, on 10 November 2024, Ms Pearson was visited at home by officers from Essex Police who told her that they were investigating a complaint about a social media post she had made.

On 12 November 2024, Ms Pearson published a column in The Daily Telegraph in which she described the visit by the police officers. She said that she had been informed by the officers that she had been accused of a "non-crime hate incident". She accused the police of "two-tier policing" and criticised them for not investigating more serious incidents such as shoplifting, burglaries, stabbings and violent crime.

From 13 November 2024 onwards, the police visit to Ms Pearson was widely reported by other newspapers, magazines and broadcasters, including by high-profile commentators, many of whom criticised the practice of investigating and recording non-crime hate incidents.

The publications by Essex Police

On 13 November 2024, Essex Police published on their website an item headed "Update relating to ongoing investigation". It said this:

At 10.30am on 16 November 2024, the following "update" was added to the above text:

At 5pm on 21 November 2024, the following further update was added to the above text:

The meanings of the publications by Essex Police

Submissions for Ms Pearson

Lorna Skinner KC submitted that each of the three publications has the following two defamatory meanings:

Updates were added to the existing text, so the meaning was cumulative. Thus, all three publications (on 13, 16 and 21 November 2024) bear both meanings.

The ordinary reasonable reader knows that not every report of an offence results in a home visit or interview. References to an interview under caution, the right to legal representation and liaising with the CPS signal that the matter was far progressed from an initial investigation. The ordinary reasonable reader would also note that the complaint was about a social media post, which the police must have read and assessed, and would infer that the police had assessed that there were grounds to suspect Ms Pearson of a crime.

Since the issue of reference is not among those to be determined at this stage, the court must assume that the ordinary reasonable reader would know that the publication referred to Ms Pearson, a journalist who has published in relation to the incident and infer that the reporting referred to was hers. The use of the word "false" (rather than, say, "inaccurate") in ordinary parlance implies intentionally false.

The 16 November 2024 update amplifies both meanings as the ordinary reasonable reader would consider there was a degree of certainty about the evidence, given the quotations from body worn footage, the references to "free speech" and the statement that there is "no public interest in falsehood". The ordinary reasonable reader would also infer that the false reporting was that of Ms Pearson.

The 21 November update does not amount to an antidote, nor does it extinguish the prior defamatory imputation. It was not made clear that the police agreed with the CPS advice. The ordinary reasonable reader would know that not everyone suspected of an offence is charged.

Submissions for the Chief Constable

Mr Richard Munden for the Chief Constable submitted that the publications of 13 and 16 November 2024 meant only that there were grounds to investigate a woman at an address in Essex for an alleged offence of inciting racial hatred, linked to a post on social media. He conceded that this was defamatory of the unnamed woman at common law, but the meaning is at Chase Level 3, as the statements refer to the early stages of an investigation.

The 21 November 2024 publication meant that an investigation into a woman at an address in Essex, in respect of an alleged crime reported to the police on which people have strong opposing views, had concluded with no charges being brought and no further action being taken. The Chief Constable denies that this publication is defamatory at common law.

The court cannot assume that the reasonable reader of the press statement will have prior knowledge of the wider story, nor take this into account.

The 13 November 2024 statement was that there was an ongoing investigation into whether an offence has been committed. It made clear that this was at "an investigative review stage – nothing more." The ordinary reasonable reader would know that it is the police's role to investigate complaints and that a decision to investigate is not the same as a decision to arrest or charge. As to the first meaning advanced by the claimant, references to what Essex Police "assessed" or "concluded" are impermissible because they offend the repetition rule. The second meaning, alleging dishonesty, is not borne by the words.

As to the 16 November 2024 update, the wording suggests that the police is merely investigating an allegation. The second meaning remains untenable as there is no suggestion of dishonesty.

As to the 21 November 2024 update, given the statement that there is to be no further action, the publication read as a whole no longer suggests grounds for investigation. It provides a complete antidote to the bane of the (low level) implication of possible wrongdoing in the earlier statements.

Discussion

The "repetition rule" is primarily relied upon by claimants to prevent a defendant from contending that "simply because it is a report of what someone else said, it carries a lesser meaning than the original allegation": see Berg v Jones, at [12] (Steyn J). But the rule reflects a structural feature of procedural law in defamation cases—a pleaded meaning "must identify the act(s), condition(s) or attribute(s) of the claimant which it is alleged is/are defamatory of him/her, not reports of them from others": Peck v Williams Trade Supplies Ltd [2020] EWHC 966 (QB) , [28] (Nicklin J).

Applying these principles, there is a difficulty with any pleaded meaning to the effect that "the Police had assessed" something about someone. As Warby LJ noted in Hemming v Poulton [2025] EWCA Civ 1494 , [2026] EMLR 4, at [9], one purpose of a meaning determination is "to identify the target for any defence of truth". (It will also be relevant to any public interest defence, to issues of malice and to remedies.) The Chief Constable could not establish a defence of truth by proving that the police had indeed made the relevant assessment; he would have to establish the truth of what they had assessed: see also Miah v BBC [2018] EWHC 1054 , [35]-[38] (Warby J) and Hewson v Times Newspapers Ltd [2019] EWHC 650 (QB) , [12] (Nicklin J). In this case, my task is to identify what was being said about the objective strength of the allegation that the woman referred to had incited racial hatred.

As to Miss Skinner's first meaning, although the word "grounds" is used in preference to "reasonable grounds", the use of "properly concluded that" connotes the same thing. The police could not "properly" conclude that there were grounds to suspect her unless the grounds were reasonable. In essence, therefore, Miss Skinner is advancing a Chase Level 2 meaning.

In my judgment, the statements do not convey this meaning. The statements of 13 and 16 November both convey the meaning identified by the Chief Constable: that there were grounds to investigate a woman at an address in Essex for an alleged offence of inciting racial hatred, linked to a post on social media. This is a Chase Level 3 meaning.

My reasons are these:

In my judgment, the statement of 21 November 2024, taken as a whole, meant that there had been grounds to investigate a woman at an address in Essex for an alleged offence of inciting racial hatred, linked to a post on social media, but, in the light of the investigation, there was no basis for further action.

I agree with Mr Munden that the ordinary reasonable reader would understand that neither the police nor the prosecuting authorities declare persons subject to investigation to be innocent. Rather they focus on whether the investigation discloses a basis for bringing criminal proceedings. In that context, the statement that "no further action" was to be taken (carrying the implication that no such action was warranted) was a complete antidote to the imputation in the earlier statements that there were grounds to investigate the woman. At common law, the statement of 21 November 2024 was therefore not defamatory of the woman referred to.

Miss Skinner's suggestion was that the statement expresses the view of the CPS, but says nothing about the view of the police, and so leaves intact the imputation contained in the previous two iterations of the statement. But that seems to me to involve precisely the kind of "over-elaborate analysis" which the authorities eschew. The ordinary reasonable reader would understand that it is the role of the CPS to give advice to the police and would infer from the fact that no further action was taken that, in the light of the investigation, there was no basis for any such action. Only a reader "avid for scandal" would read the statement as indicating some difference of view between the police and CPS.

As to Miss Skinner's second proposed meaning, in my judgment, the ordinary reasonable reader would:

That being so, each of the iterations of the press statement meant simply that the woman had provided an account of her interaction with the police which was false.

My reasons are these:

In many circumstances it would not be defamatory to say that someone's account is false, without saying that the account is intentionally false. But, as Nicklin J observed in Burleigh v Telegraph Media Group Ltd [2020] EWHC 2359 (QB) , at [21], "there are dangers in laying down broad propositions, such as 'it is not defamatory to say that a person got his facts wrong, or what he said was not true or unfounded'".

In my judgment, the question whether the second meaning is defamatory is better left for determination at trial. It will depend on the precise findings the court makes on the evidence about the extent to which the readers (or a substantial proportion of them) would know (i) that the woman referred to was Ms Pearson and (ii) that she was a journalist and columnist. Depending on the findings on these points, the court might decide that the statement did lower Ms Pearson in the estimation of right-thinking people and would tend to have a substantially adverse effect on the way that people would treat her, because, even though the statement did not say that the account was intentionally false, it suggested (at least) a lack of the care that would be expected of a journalist and columnist when reporting something newsworthy: see in this respect the discussion in Burleigh at [11] and [18]-[21].

Mr Hirst's interview on LBC

On 17 November 2024, Mr Hirst gave an interview to Lewis Goodall on the LBC radio station.

Mr Goodall then played Mr Hirst a clip of comments made by the Conservative politician Iain Duncan Smith on the same show half an hour earlier, in which he described the investigation into Ms Pearson as entering "kind of thought police territory".

The agreed transcript of the interview reads as follows (with the words complained of by the claimant in bold):

The meaning of Mr Hirst's interview on LBC

Submissions for Ms Pearson

Miss Skinner advanced the following meaning for the LBC Interview: "The police had properly concluded that there were grounds for suspecting that the claimant had committed the serious criminal offence of inciting racial hatred for which the maximum sentence is seven years' imprisonment." This is a Chase Level 2 meaning.

In support of this meaning, Miss Skinner submitted that the interview contained references to crimes and sentences without any exculpatory information, antidote or tentativeness as to the conclusion reached. A reasonable reader could not draw from this anything less than a Chase Level 2 meaning.

Submissions for Mr Hirst

Mr Busuttil denied any meaning defamatory of Ms Pearson. The references to crimes were part of a general discussion of the police's approach. Only an unreasonable listener, or one avid for scandal, could think otherwise. Mr Hirst was at pains to emphasise he was not discussing Ms Pearson's case.

Mr Busuttil's primary submission was that the words spoken are not defamatory. Alternatively, the reference to the police concluding that there were grounds for suspecting the claimant of committing a criminal offence is objectionable as it offends against the repetition rule. On any view, Mr Hirst's words are not reasonably capable of bearing any meaning higher than Chase Level 3. Nothing is implied about whether there are grounds for suspecting the claimant of having committed any offence.

Discussion

The overall impression left by Mr Hirst's contribution to the interview was of his pushing back against the suggestion that Essex Police had acted improperly by explaining that they are obliged to investigate a report alleging the commission of an offence and that the offence alleged here (inciting racial hatred) was in principle a serious one which had to be investigated.

The words relied upon by Miss Skinner to support her proposed Chase Level 2 meaning are, in my judgment, clearly references to the offence of which Ms Pearson had been accused (inciting racial hatred), rather than to any conduct or alleged conduct of Ms Pearson's. The point being made was that the offence is as a matter of principle a serious one (as shown by the sentence it attracts) and that, when a report alleging commission of such an offence is made, the police have to investigate.

The point was reinforced by the words immediately following those complained of:

No-one hearing those words could think Mr Hirst was saying anything about whether there were grounds for suspecting that Ms Pearson had committed the offence. This impression is reinforced by Mr Hirst's refusal to comment on Liz Truss's reported view that Essex Police had been bullying Ms Pearson:

These words made clear that Mr Hirst was saying nothing about the strength or otherwise of the case against Ms Pearson. However, in my judgment, Mr Hirst's words did bear the meaning that, in the light of the complaint and the post itself, there were reasonable grounds to investigate Ms Pearson for the offence of inciting racial hatred. This was defamatory at Chase Level 3.

My reasons for reaching the latter conclusion are these:

The Conservative Home article

The article on the Conservative Home website on 18 November 2024 appeared under the headline "Roger Hirst: Don't blame Essex Police for upholding the law – even if the alleged perpetrator is a powerful journalist". The byline identified Mr Hirst as the Police, Fire and Crime Commissioner for Essex. The text was as follows:

To deliver more local, visible accessible policing,

Drive down antisocial behaviour and crime,

Beat knife crime and drug gangs and protect young people,

Tackle violence against women and girls and domestic abuse,

Ensure vulnerable people are protected,

Improve road safety and reduce road deaths in Essex to zero.

The meaning of the Conservative Home article

Submissions for Ms Pearson

Miss Skinner proposed the following meaning: "Essex Police had assessed the claimant's conduct and properly concluded that there were grounds to investigate whether she had committed a hate speech crime."

In support of this, she submitted that the article signals that the matter has proceeded past initial assessment by stating that the incident has been "assessed as passing the threshold for criminal investigation". The word "alleged" does little; no antidote or suggestion that it may not be a crime is given. The piece provides endorsement of both Essex Police and the relevant legislation.

Submissions for Mr Hirst

Mr Busuttil accepted that the words "the alleged offence has been assessed as passing the threshold for criminal investigation" bear the meaning: "There were grounds to investigate whether the claimant had committed a hate speech offence." It was conceded that this is defamatory, at Chase Level 3.

Mr Busuttil submitted that the references in the claimant's proposed meaning to an "assessment" and "conclusions" are objectionable in law as they offend against the repetition rule and are superfluous. Alternatively, the claimant's reference to the Essex Police's decision to investigate being "properly" arrived at is objectionable for the additional reason that it has no basis in the article.

Discussion

There is very little between the parties as to the meaning of the article. However, I consider that Mr Busuttil's formulation is to be preferred. This is a Chase Level 3 meaning.

Conclusion

For these reasons, I conclude and determine as follows: