Yaxley-Lennon loses libel case

FartingGnome

Well-known member
Think he already has, isn't his massive house in rural Bedfodshire in his wife's name ?
you're right, already has because of this case


 

jam69

Well-known member
Ultimately liars get their comeuppance. It’s why I still have hope that this government gets what is coming to it.

Yaxley-Lennon is a despicable human being and deserves everything he continues to get.
Or do they?
 

American_Mary

Well-known member
Yaxley-Lennon is the very worst of this country, a serial law breaking bully, who only got involved in politics when his drug round in Luton was taxed by Asians driven from London by the Albanian Mafia.

How a wife beating, drug dealing, police man assaulting, fraud committing football hooligan has any place as a spokesperson for any political entity is baffling, I do suppose as someone who attempted illegal entry into a country on a false passport he has some inside knowledge on immigration and his stand against peadophiles seems noble until one learns that he gave false alibis to help aide the case of a ‘friend’ who in spite of Robinson’s statements was convicted on several counts of peadophila.
 
Last edited:

r00fie1

Well-known member
The Judgement in Full:-

Screenshot from 2021-07-22 18-16-02.jpg

SUMMARY

Jamal Hijazi -v- Stephen Yaxley-Lennon

[2021] EWHC 2008 (QB): Mr Justice Nicklin

[References in square brackets are to paragraphs in the judgment of the Court.

[The Judgment has an index to assist identification of the various issues]

1.
The Court has handed down judgment in this libel action today, following the trial of
the claim between 21-22 and 26 April 2021.

The Claimant has been successful and has
been awarded damages of £100,000.
Mr Hijazi’s Claim

2. The claim for libel arose from two videos posted by the Defendant on his Facebook
account on 28 and 29 November 2018 [22]. The transcript of what the Defendant said
in these two videos is set out in the Appendix to the Judgment.

3. The background to the claim was an incident between the Claimant and another pupil,
Bailey McLaren, at the Almondbury Community School on 25 October 2018
(“the Playing Field Incident”). The Playing Field Incident was recorded by another
pupil and the footage was shared amongst other pupils at the School (“the Viral Video”)
[5]-[14].

4. The Claimant was bullied whilst he was at the School. The Playing Field Incident was
an incident of bullying of the Claimant and was reported to the police. Bailey McLaren
was interviewed by police about the incident. He admitted his involvement and
received a police caution for common assault [9]. The Playing Field Incident (together
with earlier acts of misconduct) led to Bailey McLaren being permanently excluded
from the School on 12 November 2018 [19].

5. From around 27 November 2018, the Viral Video became widely shared on social
media and was picked up by mainstream media. Articles appeared on 27-28 November
2018. Although there was no direct evidence that the attack on the Claimant in Playing
Field Incident had been racially motivated, the event quickly became perceived as an
example of racist bullying of the Claimant by Bailey McLaren [21]. It was in the midst
of this media controversy that the Defendant posted the two videos that led to this libel
action [22].

6. At an earlier stage in the proceedings the Court determined that the First and Second
Videos conveyed the following meanings [28]-[29]:

First Video:

“The Claimant had (1) as part of a gang, participated in a violent assault on a young girl which
had caused her significant injuries; and (2) threatened to stab another child.”

Second Video:

“The Claimant had, as part of a gang, participated in a violent assault on a young girl which
had caused her serious injuries.”

7. The Defendant’s videos were seen by almost 1 million people. He admitted that
publication of the First and Second Videos caused serious harm to the Claimant’s
reputation [31].
Defence of truth

8. The Defendant relied upon the defence of truth under s.2 Defamation Act 2013.
To support his defence, the Defendant sought to prove 7 allegations against the
Claimant [33].

Evidence at the trial

9.The Claimant and his father gave evidence at the trial. The Defendant did not give
evidence, but he called five witnesses, all of whom were pupils at the School at the time
of the Playing Field Incident [41]. The Court also had substantial school records for the
key witnesses [42]-[43]. The Defendant also sought to rely on hearsay evidence in the
form of recordings of several individuals. Most of these recordings had been made
covertly.

The Court’s decision on the defence of truth

10. The Court found that the Defendant had failed to prove each of the seven incidents
upon which he had relied for his defence of truth [55]-[148]. In consequence, the
Defendant’s defence of truth failed.
“The Defendant took on the burden of proving his allegations to be true. He failed. In reality…
his evidence fell woefully short.” [163]

Remedies

11. The approach to assessing libel damages is set out in [150]. The Court has awarded the
Claimant damages of £100,000. Explaining the award, the Judge said:
[162]

The Defendant’s allegations against the Claimant were very serious and were published
widely... The consequences to the Claimant have been particularly severe. Although it
was media attention on the Viral Video that first propelled the Claimant (and Bailey
McLaren) into the glare of publicity, overwhelmingly that coverage (rightly) portrayed
the Claimant as the victim in the Playing Field Incident.

The Defendant’s contribution to this media frenzy was a deliberate effort to portray
the Claimant as being, far from an innocent victim, but in fact a violent aggressor.
Worse, the language used in the First and Second Videos was calculated to inflame
the situation.

As was entirely predictable, the Claimant then became the target of abuse which
ultimately led to him and his family having to leave their home, and the Claimant
to have to abandon his education.

The Defendant is responsible for this harm, some of the scars of which, particularly the
impact on the Claimant’s education, are likely last for many years, if not a lifetime.[163]
The most significant element of the damages award that I fix will be the need for
vindication. This judgment – but more importantly – the award of damages will mark
clearly that the Defendant has failed to demonstrate the truth of his allegations.

The Defendant took on the burden of proving his allegations to be true. He has failed.
In reality, and for the reasons I have explained, his evidence fell woefully short. He has,
however, persisted with the serious allegations he originally made, and has even added
to them during the proceedings.

The Claimant has had to face them in the full glare and
publicity of a High Court trial. It is my responsibility to make clear that the Defendant
has failed in his defence of truth, to vindicate the Claimant and to award him a sum in
damages that represents fair compensation. The sum I award is £100,000.

12. The Court found that there was no need for an order requiring the Defendant to publish
a summary of the Court’s decision. The Court will hear submissions on whether an
injunction should be granted and, if so, in what terms [164]-[169].

NOTE: This summary is provided to help in understanding the Court’s
decision. It does not form part of the reasons for the decision. The full
judgment of the Court is the only authoritative document.
Judgments are
public documents and are available at: www.judiciary.uk and
www.bailii.org.uk

22 July 2021
 

HiredGun123

Well-known member
Yaxley-Lennon is the very worst of this country, a serial law breaking bully, who only got involved in politics when his drug round in Luton was taxed by Asian’s driven from London by the Albanian Mafia.

How a wife beating, drug dealing, police man assaulting, fraud committing football hooligan has any place as a spokesperson for any political entity is baffling, I do suppose as someone who attempted illegal entry into a country on a false passport he has some inside knowledge on immigration and his stand against peadophiles seems noble until one learns that he gave fake alibis to help aide the case of a friend’ who in spite of Robinson’s statements was convicted on several counts of peadophila.

was he a drug dealer? I don’t believe he’s ever been convicted of anything like that?
 

norfolkngood

Well-known member
interesting case this one. there seemed to be a fair few testifying that the kid in the case was indeed a bully, hitting a girl with a hockey stick and smashing another kids head off the wall etc. some adults talking about it too. there was a video of locals being questioned about it, not just the stereotype Robinson supporters, but even some Asian elders saying the kid was a bully and attacked younger kids. so I guess the decision just dismisses any witnesses on those things. I wonder how much it was even considered

That’s not to defend Tommy Robinson, he had no place to get involved, although I’m sure I know why he did.

I still think there was more to the case and he may not have been totally wrong about the story, unless we’re just dismissing a fair few and kids locals as total liars, but it certainly wasn’t his place to be involved anyway.

whether he’s right or wrong about what happened, I don’t think it’s wrong to be paying damages for blowing up a story involving children, but then again, so did the newspapers...but they’re hardly a moral compass either.

Now that you have read the post beneath yours identifying that the judge says all of this is carp do you not feel that you want to delete your post so that you don't look like a camp follower of Stephen.

PS have you noticed how even the media have gone back to calling him by his real name.
 
Top
X