“13. On26 March 2016 , the Claimant discovered a listing in the name of APS in the Psychotherapy Experts directory (www.psychotherapyexperts.co.uk). This listing had been created by the Defendant without the consent, permission or knowledge of the Claimant. The Defendant, when making the entry, had stated her direct telephone number instead of the Claimant's contact details. It is averred that, if this entry was created before the Defendant's departure from APS, she failed to take any steps to amend the contact details associated with this entry after leaving APS. 14. Following this discovery, again in late March 2016, the Claimant found a Google directory entry in the name of APS. Whilst it contained the address of the Premises and the web address for APS, it listed the Defendant's direct dial as the main contact number. 15. Following discussions with Google, the Claimant eventually found out on13 October 2016 that the Google entry had been created in 2011 using the email address info@transitionaltherapy.co.uk (a domain name associated with the Defendant's business). 16. It is averred that the Google directory entry (and the inclusion of the Defendant's telephone number) had been created by the Defendant without the consent, permission or knowledge of the Claimant. 17. These directory entries unwittingly redirected prospective clients seeking to contact APS. It is averred that these entries, after the Defendant's departure from APS, misrepresented her association with the Claimant's business to prospective clients and / or members of the public. 18. The Defendant sought to pass of her practice as APS in that: PARTICULARS OF PASSING OFF a. the Defendant knowingly misrepresented to prospective clients / members of the public her association with APS hen creating the entries in the Google and Psychotherapy Experts directories with her own contact details and/or failing to amend the same upon her departure from APS; the Defendant knowingly misrepresented to prospective clients/ members of the public her association with APS.”
“(i) As to Google, the Defendant did not create a listing that represented herself as APS or part of APS. The only relevant listing she created referred to her working at the address of the Premises. Any merger of her listing with the Claimant’s trading name or website was not created by her. The Defendant does not, for the avoidance of doubt, suggest it was likely to have been created by the Claimant. Any such merged listing appears to have been the result of an erroneous automated process by Google which affects some businesses which have shared the same address, this being a known problem with Google’s processes. (ii) As to Psychotherapy Experts, the averment that the Defendant created the listing is false. Incorrect information was copied from the Google listing by the website publishers after they launched the website in 2016. The listing on psychotherapyexperts.co.uk did not exist until25 February 2016 at the earliest.”
“In 2016 I discovered a psychotherapist had committed cyber fraud on my organisation. The metropolitan police completed a full investigation under the rules of cyber fraud yet despite an admission under caution, they do not have the funds to prosecute so suggested a civil action. Due to the amount of police estimation of losses a civil hearing cost£10,000 . If you believe justice ought to be done and the protection of the public imperative I ask you to support me in raising the funds to take her to court. The photo beneath is the google listing reflecting her telephone number and my website taken from the drop down menu on Google. Google since took over the listing and amended it. She needs to be prosecuted for cyberfraud and I would like the public protected.”
“Thank you. This needs resolving and bacp refuse to do anything until the legal matter has ended. Caroline Ley of cherry tree therapy in Buckhurst Hill. She admitted under caution her actions Liz. Still practicing and many therapists rent from her! #Google do not cooperate unless the #MLAT treaty is implemented. #metpolice do not have the funds to implement it despite her admittance under police caution by the cyber crime squad. :( I’ve contacted @CressidaDick sends me straight back to CybercrimeCID.”
“Frances Geis long time to come to terms with, but I have nothing left to lose. I lost what I was building. And clients are not safe with any therapist that commits the level of fraud she did. Caroline ley of Cherry Tree Therapy in Buckhurst Hill. I spent 2017 investigating her alongside the cyber crime squad. Cancer took over. She needs stopping.”
“Mandi Martin thank you. I am never comfortable exposing anyone to the degree I have decided to do here. I literally have no choice other than to attempt to raise£10,000 to submit the case to a civil court Mandi. The protection of clients is my greatest concern. In 2016/17 I spent months working with the cyber crime squad only to be informed they did not have the funds to proceed. I spent a lot of money on a private solicitor which resulted in caroline ley somehow printing off 42 sheets of comments made by therapists in a fb group as well as no real defence. Objective make my solicitor charge a fortune to peruse over 100 a4 sheets. This is my last attempt to get her into court and it recognised that she has committed the criminal act of fraud and over a period of 5 years. Cancer took over and so did APA, but I’m back onto this as clients need to be fully aware of the danger. She cannot be allowed to commit a criminal act to the tune of£1.8 million pound over 5 years and get away with it. The link to my pp is above and the gofundpage is there. I would appreciate it being shared by everyone. We all have a duty to protect clients.”
“This is awful to read Siobhain. Shocking! I’m so sorry that this happened to you and - as many have stated above - feel concerned that the culprit is possibly at large with clients?”
“The cherry tree therapy centre was set up by Caroline Ley who as a newly qualified therapist in 2010 had a placement in my organisation, she proceeded to set up a Google listing without my knowledge or consent and break Googles own protocols by placing her own mobile number underneath the Google CALL button. To all intent and purpose any member of the public pressing the call button would have assumed they were ringing my organisation as it was my website. Yet they were redirected to herself. She has been interviewed by the cyber crime squad and admitted to advertising herself this way, therefore committing the criminal act of Fraud. The police do not have the funds to prosecute her and I am taking her to a civil court. She did not inform her membership organisation she was under investigation by the cyber crime squad as ethically required to do so and for the sake of transparency. Crime ref 4406354/16 She takes no responsibility for this act and she cannot prosecute me for defamation of character as the evidence is [clear] combined with a statement under caution admitting she was advertising herself! If she wishes to settle out of court this has also been offered yet she refuses to accept responsibility and is unwilling to negotiate a settlement. Please be aware of seeing any therapist that has committed a criminal act of Fraud and Misrepresentation to the Public. Utilising another therapists organisation and over riding the main telephone line to the company is wholly unethical and illegal. Furthermore she directed clients via Google maps from my company directly to Cherry Tree Therapy. The evidence is available to anyone that requires it. I had hoped I Would not have to do this , but in the circumstances I feel the need to protect all clients and all therapists who choose to associate themselves with this organisation.”
“The nature of the allegations and the manner of, and persistence of their publication were calculated to cause alarm, fear and/or distress and were offensive and oppressive. The Claimant knew, or ought to have known, that they would have the effect, inter alia, of causing the Defendant unjustifiable alarm and distress. In addition to the Claimant’s harassing and threatening conduct, she encouraged others in the Defendant’s professional field to make abusive statements about her, greatly increasing the Defendant’s alarm and distress.”
“37. By publishing and continuing to publish the statements set out in the Appendix from 2016, the Claimant, as data controller, processed and continued to process the personal data of the Defendant in breach of the Claimant’s statutory duty under section 4(4) of the Data Protection Act (DPA) 1998 because the personal data about the Defendant was inaccurate and the processing of it unfair and/or unlawful, in contravention of the First and Fourth Data Protection Principles.”
“15. It is admitted that the Claimant published the statements pleaded in paragraphs 23 (a) to 23 (c) and 23 (f) Paragraph 23 (d) is denied. The post therein pleaded was not published by the Claimant. The Defendant is required to prove paragraph 23 (e). However, the Claimant admits makes no admissions in respect of paragraph 24 and the Defendant is required to prove that the statements were defamatory. 16. By way of context, the Claimant believed in the statements admitted to be published in paragraph 15 of this Reply and Defence to the Counterclaim as: Moreover, the Claimant relies onsection 2 of the Defamation Act 2013 and avers that the statements are substantially true as: a. the Claimant received text messages from the Defendant in or around March 2016 (when the Claimant discovered the Google listing) stating: “[It] still has my old business details, which links to the Shrubberies. I can't log in as I don't have my log in details as its 7 years old. I'll do my best to delete it as I really don’t need it there. Buckhurst Hill Counselling doesn't even exist anymore. Honestly though if anyone phoned for your company I'd send them your way. I don't need to steal your business.”; and “I’ve deleted my account. Hopefully that will sort your problem out.” a. b. the Defendant was investigated by the Police for dishonesty offences (including fraud) arising out of the aforementioned directory entries. The Claimant relies on crime reference number 4406354/16; b. c. the Investigating Officer interviewed the Defendant as part of the criminal investigation. This interview was conducted during July 2016; c. d. the Defendant admitted during that interview that she had created the listing in the Google directory; d. e. the criminal investigation was closed by the Police due to insufficient evidence and an inability to obtain the necessary documentation from Google. The matter was also considered to be more suited for a civil action based on the documentation available. This was confirmed to the Claimant by the Investigating Officer; and e. f. the Defendant did not report the criminal investigation to the British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy, the Defendant’s professional body. 17. Further or in the alternative, the Claimant relies onsection 4 of the Defamation Act 2013 . The Claimant reasonably believed that the publication of the statements was in the public interest in that: a. the Defendant was a practising psychotherapist on or around the alleged date of publication; b. the statements related to the Defendant’s practice as a regulated psychotherapist; c. honesty and integrity are core ethical duties of practising psychotherapists; and d. the public and prospective clients should not be misled by the Defendant. 18. 17. Paragraphs 25 to 29 are not admitted.The Defendant is required to prove all that is alleged. Within paragraph 27, it is denied that the Claimant has ‘falsely’ claimed that the Police had obtained a confession from the Defendant. The Claimant repeats paragraphs 16 (ba) to 16 (dc) of this Reply and Defence to the Counterclaim.” “[It] still has my old business details, which links to the Shrubberies. I can't log in as I don't have my log in details as its 7 years old. I'll do my best to delete it as I really don’t need it there. Buckhurst Hill Counselling doesn't even exist anymore. Honestly though if anyone phoned for your company I'd send them your way. I don't need to steal your business.”; and “I’ve deleted my account. Hopefully that will sort your problem out.”
“The law of passing off can be summarised in one short general proposition — no man may pass off his goods as those of another. More specifically, it may be expressed in terms of the elements which the plaintiff in such an action has to prove in order to succeed. These are three in number. First, he must establish a goodwill or reputation attached to the goods or services which he supplies in the mind of the purchasing public by association with the identifying ‘get-up’ (whether it consists simply of a brand name or a trade description, or the individual features of labelling or packaging) under which his particular goods or services are offered to the public, such that the get-up is recognised by the public as distinctive specifically of the plaintiff's goods or services. Secondly, he must demonstrate a misrepresentation by the defendant to the public (whether or not intentional) leading or likely to lead the public to believe that goods or services offered by him are the goods or services of the plaintiff. Whether the public is aware of the plaintiff's identity as the manufacturer or supplier of the goods or services is immaterial, as long as they are identified with a particular source which is in fact the plaintiff. For example, if the public is accustomed to rely upon a particular brand name in purchasing goods of a particular description, it matters not at all that there is little or no public awareness of the identity of the proprietor of the brand name. Thirdly, he must demonstrate that he suffers or, in a quia timet action, that he is likely to suffer damage by reason of the erroneous belief engendered by the defendant's misrepresentation that the source of the defendant's goods or services is the same as the source of those offered by the plaintiff.”
“What is goodwill? It is a thing very easy to describe, very difficult to define. It is the benefit and advantage of the good name, reputation, and connection of a business. It is the attractive force which brings in custom. It is the one thing which distinguishes an old-established business from a new business at its first start. The goodwill of a business must emanate from a particular centre or source. However widely extended or diffused its influence may be, goodwill is worth nothing unless it has power of attraction sufficient to bring customers home to the source from which it emanates.”
“I agree with the Judge that on the facts of this case, the proposition that BM made the misrepresentation must be based upon agency, authorisation or some kind of procuration, none of which were pleaded: see the judgment at paragraph [34(iii)]. At the very least, it would be necessary to imply BM's consent to the use to which Really Moving might put the information in order to render it liable. That was not pleaded either. In any event, it seems to me that consent cannot be implied from merely having uploaded information which might become inaccurate to pages on a website which could be and were altered, without knowledge that the information has been placed on pages which were inaccessible and could not be altered. In such circumstances, the misrepresentation is made by an independent third party.”
“4-1 The action for passing-off protects the claimant’s right of property in his business or goodwill.1 It is therefore essential that the defendant’s misrepresentation should be such as to be really likely to cause substantial damage to that property. If there is no damage or prospect of damage to the claimant’s business or goodwill then there can be no cause of action for passing-off. The original reason for this may lie deep in the history of the tort, but the importance of damage has been confirmed in the modern definitions of passing-off given by the House of Lords in both the Advocaat and Jif Lemon cases [ie. Erven Warnink BV v J Townend & Sons (Hull) Ltd[1979] AC 731 ] and Reckitt & Colman Products Ltd].The fourth and fifth of Lord Diplock’s heads in Advocaat [at p742], are as follows: “(4) Which [misrepresentation] is calculated to injure the business or goodwill of another trader (in the sense that this is a reasonably foreseeable consequence) and (5) which causes actual damage to a business or goodwill of the trader by whom the action is brought or (in a quia timet action) will probably do so.” 4-2 The importance of damage was emphasised even more clearly by Lord Fraser who said that the claimant must show [at p742]: ‘That he has suffered, or is really likely to suffer, substantial damage to his property in the goodwill.’” “(4) Which [misrepresentation] is calculated to injure the business or goodwill of another trader (in the sense that this is a reasonably foreseeable consequence) and (5) which causes actual damage to a business or goodwill of the trader by whom the action is brought or (in a quia timet action) will probably do so.” ‘That he has suffered, or is really likely to suffer, substantial damage to his property in the goodwill.’”
“The existence of confusion, especially in the popular sense of the public sometimes failing to distinguish the goods or businesses of the claimant and defendant, does not mean that there is actionable passing-off. ‘There must be deception, either intentional or unintentional. If there is no deception, mere confusion or likelihood of confusion is not sufficient to give a cause of action’ [Barnsley Brewery Co Ltd v RBNB[1997] FSR 462 per Robert Walker LJ].”
“The relevant question, in the context of an action for passing off, is not whether there is a risk of confusion because the defendant’s name is similar to the plaintiff’s name; the relevant question is whether the defendant’s use of his name in connection with his goods or his business will be taken as a representation that his goods or business are, or have some connection with, the goods or business of the plaintiff - so giving rise to harm, or the risk of harm, to the goodwill and reputation which the plaintiff is entitled to protect. A risk of confusion is not enough.”
“At common law, a meaning is defamatory and therefore actionable if it satisfies two requirements. The first, known as 'the consensus requirement', is that the meaning must be one that 'tends to lower the claimant in the estimation of right-thinking people generally.' The Judge has to determine 'whether the behaviour or views that the offending statement attributes to a claimant are contrary to common, shared values of our society': Monroe v Hopkins[2017] 4 WLR 68 [51]. The second requirement is known as the 'threshold of seriousness’. To be defamatory, the imputation must be one that would tend to have a 'substantially adverse effect' on the way that people would treat the claimant: Thornton v Telegraph Media Group Ltd[2011] 1 WLR 1985 [98] ...”
“2 Truth (1) It is a defence to an action for defamation for the defendant to show that the imputation conveyed by the statement complained of is substantially true. (2) Subsection (3) applies in an action for defamation if the statement complained of conveys two or more distinct imputations. (3) If one or more of the imputations is not shown to be substantially true, the defence under this section does not fail if, having regard to the imputations which are shown to be substantially true, the imputations which are not shown to be substantially true do not seriously harm the claimant’s reputation. (4) The common law defence of justification is abolished and, accordingly,section 5 of the Defamation Act 1952 (justification) is repealed.”
“40.As Defamation Act 2013 s.2(1) makes clear, it is for a defendant to prove that the libel was substantially true. The burden of proof therefore rests on the defendant. That was also the case when the common law defence of justification existed. 41. As for the standard of proof, the starting point is that these are civil proceedings and in civil proceedings the standard of proof is the balance of probabilities i.e. is it more probable than not that the article was substantially true in the meaning that it bore? In this case, is it more likely than not that the claimant did what the articles alleged? The common law knows only two standards of proof: beyond reasonable doubt (or, as it is now put, so that the decision maker is sure) which applies in criminal cases and certain other immaterial situations and the balance of probabilities (which applies in civil cases) – see In re H (Minors) (Sexual Abuse: Standard of Proof)[1996] AC 563 , 586. The 'balance of probabilities' simply means, as Lord Nichols said in Re H, that, 'a court is satisfied an event occurred if the court considers, on the evidence, the occurrence of the event was more likely than not.' 42. Although there is a single and unvarying standard of proof in civil proceedings, the evidence which is required to satisfy it may vary according to the circumstances. In Re D[2008] 1 WLR 1499 at [27] Lord Carswell approved what had been said by Richards LJ in R (N) v Mental Health Review Tribunal (Northern Region)[2006] QB 468 at [62] who had said, 'Although there is a single civil standard of proof on the balance of probabilities, it is flexible in its application. In particular, the more serious the allegation or the more serious the consequences if the allegation is proved, the stronger must be the evidence before a court will find the allegation proved on the balance of probabilities. Thus the flexibility of the standard lies not in any adjustment to the degree of probability required for an allegation to be proved (such that a more serious allegation has to be proved to a higher degree of probability), but in the strength or quality of the evidence that will in practice be required for an allegation to be proved on the balance of probabilities.' [emphasis in the original] 43. Simon J. also quoted the same comments by Richards LJ when considering the defence of justification in the course of his judgment on a libel claim – see Hunt v Times Newspapers Ltd.[2013] EWHC 1868 (QB) . He said (at [76]), ‘Where the allegation is one of serious criminality (as here) clear evidence is required.' 44. Simon J's judgment concerned the common law, but neither party before me suggested that a different approach was required in this regard in consequence of the replacement of the common law defence of justification with the statutory defence of truth and see Bokhova v Associated Newspapers Ltd[2018] EWHC 2032 (QB) ,[2019] QB 861 at [28].”
“1. Prohibition of harassment. (1) A person must not pursue a course of conduct - (a) which amounts to harassment of another, and (b) which he knows or ought to know amounts to harassment of the other. (1A) A person must not pursue a course of conduct — (a) which involves harassment of two or more persons, and (b) which he knows or ought to know involves harassment of those persons, and (c) by which he intends to persuade any person (whether or not one of those mentioned above)— (i) not to do something that he is entitled or required to do, or (ii) to do something that he is not under any obligation to do. (2) For the purposes of this section or section 2A(2)(c), the person whose course of conduct is in question ought to know that it amounts to or involves harassment of another if a reasonable person in possession of the same information would think the course of conduct amounted to harassment of the other. (3) Subsection (1) or (1A) does not apply to a course of conduct if the person who pursued it shows - (a) that it was pursued for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime, (b) that it was pursued under any enactment or rule of law or to comply with any condition or requirement imposed by any person under any enactment, or (c) that in the particular circumstances the pursuit of the course of conduct was reasonable.”
“7. Interpretation of this group of sections. (1) This section applies for the interpretation of sections 1 to 5A. (2) References to harassing a person include alarming the person or causing the person distress. (3) A ‘course of conduct’ must involve - (a) in the case of conduct in relation to a single person (see section 1(1)), conduct on at least two occasions in relation to that person, or (b) in the case of conduct in relation to two or more persons (see section 1(1A)), conduct on at least one occasion in relation to each of those persons. (3A) A person's conduct on any occasion shall be taken, if aided, abetted, counselled or procured by another - (a) to be conduct on that occasion of the other (as well as conduct of the person whose conduct it is); and (b) to be conduct in relation to which the other's knowledge and purpose, and what he ought to have known, are the same as they were in relation to what was contemplated or reasonably foreseeable at the time of the aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring. (4) ‘Conduct’ includes speech. (5) References to a person, in the context of the harassment of a person, are references to a person who is an individual.”
“Speaking from my own experience, I have found it essential in cases of fraud, when considering the credibility of witnesses, always to test their veracity by reference to the objective facts proved independently of their testimony, in particular by reference to the documents in the case, and also to pay particular regard to their motives and to the overall probabilities. It is frequently very difficult to tell whether a witness is telling the truth or not; and where there is a conflict of evidence such as there was in the present case, reference to the objective facts and documents, references to the witness' motives and to the overall probabilities can be of very great assistance to a judge in ascertaining the truth.”
“Put simply, meaning the Defendant was using my company details and fraudulently passing herself as my business, but using her own mobile number.”
“It appeared that enquiries meant for APS had been forwarded to the Defendant for years and as my business declined, her business increased. No removal of the Google link directing business to the Defendant could remedy the damage done.”
“On the evidence, the Google listing was clearly changed in 2014 to coincide with the Defendant’s new company address and as I was in discussion with Google to take back the listing which they informed me had been ‘claimed’ by someone else but were assisting me in gaining ownership and access to my listing again. As Google were completely removing the Defendant’s ownership and giving my business back to me, there was a further attempt to amend the listing by the Defendant and make it look as it should, but with her full company details on it during this process.”
“I was informed at the time, that the Defendant had acknowledged creating the listing and confirmed directly to me that she had created it ‘7 years earlier’ and that defamation could not apply.”
“We were asked for your company in the past (last year), but there was not a listing for your company on our website. Part of the initial listings were taken from Google search and other sources and data was entered by a 3rd party. It is pretty much the same process the search engines use to collect data and form listings.”
“There is no evidence within the crime report to support the allegation that DC Annor said any of the comments claimed by Ms Crosbie. There is no reference of you making any admissions in interview, it is recorded that you denied the allegation during interview. The closing report of the crime explains that the ‘loss’ the victim incurred was hypothetical and that an MLAT was a disproportionate enquiry. Costs incurred are not mentioned. I asked DC Annor to provide an account in regards to the allegations made by you. He emailed me his response on02/05/2021 . DC Annor states: • DC Annor denies saying that you admitted to the fraud in interview. • DC Annor denies that the prosecution failed due to ‘costs’ or that this was what he told Ms Crosbie. MLAT’s have a cost element but are agreed post charge. There was insufficient evidence to bring the case to the CPS for charging decision. • DC Annor told Ms Crosbie that a warrant had been applied for but states she was never informed of Police resources, dates or tactics. • DC Annor denies providing a value for the alleged fraud as there was deemed to be no quantifiable loss. • Ms Crosbie asked DC Annor to be a witness and he declined. He states he would however attend by virtue of a Court Summons. • Ms Crosbie’s claim of being able to make accusations of fraud in the public domain and to other parties and being protected against any action for defamation or harassment or any similar conversation is wholly denied by DC Annor. There has, at no stage, been any evidence shown to suggest that Ms Crosbie was informed of anything that she has claimed by the MPS or specifically DC Yaw Annor. 1 That Ms Crosbie was told you had committed fraud and you admitted to this in interview. – No evidence of claim & directly denied by DC Annor 2. That police did not prosecute due to the costs. - No evidence of claim & directly denied by DC Annor 3. That 20 officers were available to raid your house. - No evidence of claim & directly denied by DC Annor 4. Police have advised Ms Crosbie that the total sum of her losses was£1.6 million . - No evidence of claim & directly denied by DC Annor 5. DC Annor has told Ms Crosbie he would act as a witness for her at civil court. - No evidence of claim & directly denied by DC Annor 6. Police have told Ms Crosbie she is protected against any action for defamation or harassment. - No evidence of claim & directly denied by DC Annor 7. You also allege that in 2017 DS Vint wrote to you and informed you that DC Annor would no longer be investigating. You perceived this as an allegation you were wasting police time - I have read the email sent to you from DS Vint. The email is succinct in its nature but I do not believe it extends to rudeness. DS Vint invites you to make further contact via him directly and not DC Annor.”
“I have discussed this case with DS Liddar. The suspects actions have exposed the victim to a loss. I will continue with the investigation as the police believe this is a fraud and not a civil case.”
“29. … In January 2011, I created an email account transitionaltherapy@gmail.com and an associated Google account. I added a business profile for Buckhurst Hill Counselling and Psychotherapy to ‘Google Places’ (this service has since been rebranded many times by Google, becoming known as Google+ Local (2011), Google My Business (2014) and more recently, Google Business Profiles (2021)). I used the Buckhurst Hill name to set up the listing as at this point the only website that I had live was www.buckhursthillcounselling.co.uk and I was yet to rebrand myself as Transitional Therapy. I had also set up a counselling room at my home in Buckhurst Hill with the intention of seeing clients. I also linked my website to Google Search Console to monitor web activity (I produce at page 11 of my exhibit CSL/1, an email from Google to transitionaltherapy@gmail.com referring to the Search Console and my Buckhurst Hill website). This was my first Google listing, so it needed to be verified by Google to ensure that it was a genuine business, and was located at the address given. In order to verify my listing, Google sent a postcard to 10 The Shrubberies [the Premises], which included a code which I then entered into my Google Business account.”
“In the early part of 2011, I began to rent an additional counselling room on an ad hoc basis in Prestige House, Queens Road, Buckhurst Hill, with a view to gaining additional clients from a different location. This was the first time I rented rooms in addition to the one I rented at APS. The Queens Therapy Rooms operated in a similar way to APS. I recall adding this new location to my website and setting up a second Google Places listing for ‘Buckhurst Hill Counselling’ using the Queen’s Road location. I later added a Google Places listing for Transitional Therapy at the Queens Road address when I had rebranded (I produce at page 38 of my exhibit CSL/1, a screenshot of the Transitional Therapy Google listing. I didn’t immediately replace the Buckhurst Hill Counselling listings with the Transitional Therapy listings as returning clients would not be able to find me if I removed them completely. I have since tried to see if I can obtain the precise dates for the set-up and closures of all my Google Business listings, but have unfortunately been unable to do so. Google does not appear to document this information.”
“On Saturday26 March 2016 , after facilitating a peer supervision group at the Centre, I was surprised to see I had a missed call from Siobhain, and that she had apparently left me two voicemail messages. I had had no contact with her since December 2011, more than four years prior. Upon listening to the voicemails, I was shocked to hear two very angry, loud, threatening messages. I recall her saying that she was ‘finding my number attached to her business all over the Internet’, that I had ‘taken over her website’, ‘hacked into Google’ and ‘replaced a Google button’ (or words to these effects). She said she did not know how I had done it, but that she would not be letting it go.”
“77. The following night (27 March 2016 ), I went through various search terms on Google, and came across my old Google business listing for Buckhurst Hill Counselling and Psychotherapy. At first glance, I thought it was just my old listing, but then I noticed that it did not look right, and that the details had been changed. The listing showed my trading name (Buckhurst Hill Counselling and Psychotherapy), my old work address at 10 The Shrubberies, and my work number (which was and still is my number ending in 857), but displayed a link to Siobhain’s (APS) website instead of my own. I noted that the listing was coming up on Google searches for both Buckhurst Hill Counselling, and APS. The listing also had a review from someone I did not recognise (a Rebecca Elliott) saying: ‘I have now referred several women to Louisa for issues that have arisen during or shortly after pregnancy, whether birth related or historical issues that then become an issue once the dynamics have changed. I am pleased to say that all of my clients have been able to either resolve their issues or have learnt coping techniques to help them better manage their concerns.’ I did not know who Louisa was, and had never worked with anyone called Louisa. There was also a comment on the review by Siobhain. I produce a copy of the review, on which Siobhain’s comment is just about visible (originally disclosed by Siobhain in pre-action correspondence) at page 236 of my exhibit CSL/1. I was really confused as to why both the review and Siobhain's comment on the review had been left on an old Buckhurst Hill Counselling listing. The business listing was also marked as closed. This meant that if anyone had come across the listing, they would see that the business was no longer in operation at that address. 78. I thought that someone might have suggested an edit as I believed that Google My Business was a public platform which allowed anyone to suggest edits to listings, bar the actual name of the company. This is evident from images produced by Siobhain which seemingly show her in ‘edit mode’ on the listing. At the time, this was the only explanation I could come up with as I knew that I had put in the web address www.buckhursthillcounselling.co.uk when I set up the listing in 2011 and now the listing appeared with the incorrect web address of www.apspsychotherapyandcounselling.co.uk. Having these incorrect details would potentially be damaging to my own marketing and so was obviously not something I would have done.” ‘I have now referred several women to Louisa for issues that have arisen during or shortly after pregnancy, whether birth related or historical issues that then become an issue once the dynamics have changed. I am pleased to say that all of my clients have been able to either resolve their issues or have learnt coping techniques to help them better manage their concerns.’ would have done.”
“That’s now the third time you have threatened me. I am not worried about you taking it further because all of it is beyond my control as I have done nothing to create the situation. I’m formally asking you to stop contacting me directly from now on as it amounts to harassment.”
“I answered the police questions fully and to the best of my ability, explaining how I had obtained my clients over the years, and the history of my websites and trading names and so on. I confirmed that I had not received any enquiries or referrals intended for Siobhain. I explained that Siobhain was struggling to rent out her additional therapy rooms when I was still working with her. The police read me parts of a statement made by Siobhain. A lot of it seemed to be irrelevant. However, the police showed me an advert that Siobhain had apparently discovered on a directory website called Psychotherapy Experts. I had never heard of the site, so this completely threw me. I could see that the advert apparently had some of my details on it, and I guessed that these details must have been taken from the mixed-up Google listing.”
“I categorically denied deliberately altering Siobhain’s Google listing or having any knowledge of the details apparently given on the Psychotherapy Experts website. I left the Police Station, with the police saying they would investigate the matter further.”
“Caroline was interviewed and denied altering [blacked out] listing and stated she had created her own to advertise where she was working at the time to generate her own clients. She did not alter [blacked out] listing and denied any knowledge of the details on Psychotherapy Experts. … Despite the extensive investigation undertaken by DC Annor there has been no evidence obtained to support a charge of fraud in the criminal courts. As such this report can be closed.”
“92. On19 May 2017 , I reached out to the Google Advertiser community to see if anyone could explain how the mixed-up listing might have arisen, if it was not the result of any deliberate action by me or Siobhain. I was told that it ‘could be that Google has the two businesses confused as one in the same’, and that ‘this happens more easily if both business are the same category or closely related categories’ which of course Buckhurst Hill Counselling and APS were. I produce a copy of this email at page 288 of CSL/1. I also contacted Google My Business support, who stated that there could not be more than one listing at one location (see page 289 of CSL/1). It started to appear to me that what might have happened is that both me and Siobhain created Google business listings which were initially recorded as being at 10 The Shrubberies and would have been under the category of Counselling or Mental Health Services, and that at some point in time (possibly in 2015) the details of these listings were merged by Google, and became unmerged (as it were) once I deleted my old listing in March 2016. Further support for this ‘merging’ theory came from the Rebecca Elliott review. As noted above, the Rebecca Elliott review, and a response by Siobhain appeared on a listing in the name of Buckhurst Hill Counselling. However, the review left by Rebecca Elliott on24 May 2015 was never left on a listing in the name of Buckhurst Hill Counselling, but rather a listing in the name of APS Psychotherapy. .. 93. All of this is quite confusing, and we may never know exactly what happened. I did not – and do not – feel that it is actually for me to posit, much less prove this theory, because I did not do anything wrong – and more importantly – I do not believe that there was ever any actual confusion caused to the public, or any damage to Siobhain/APS’ goodwill (I am not aware of any evidence to this effect). However, since Siobhain appeared to believe that I had acted dishonestly in some way, I felt obliged to try to get the bottom of the matter in order to persuade her otherwise.”
“As the Facebook posts that I had seen referred to readers being ‘updated on the fraud case’, I knew that there had almost certainly been previous statements about it. I therefore carried out a search, as I was deeply concerned about this misinformation being published to thousands of people. I discovered that Siobhain had been posting publicly about her allegations for some time. The earliest comments which appeared as though they might relate to me, dated back to at least14 March 2016 (i.e. before she had contacted me about it). On that date, Siobhain wrote on her personal Facebook page: ‘That was a very direct, assertive email I’ve just sent to a therapist. Nice I may be, but piss on my business and you will hear from me!!!!!’ Pausing there, I never received any email, which makes me question whether this post was about me but in any event, it demonstrates her aggressive, vitriolic nature.”
“I was angry at the police during this time as Siobhain was stating that she had been told by the police that she was within her rights to say all this openly in public as I had admitted the offence of fraud (‘…police made it very clear I can’t be done for libel as she admitted it under caution in police interview’ (see page 372 of CSL/1). I could not understand why the police would tell her this. I needed to reach out to the police for help, but I felt very mistrusting of them. I did report Siobhain to the police (as set out below) but it would not be until several years later (in 2021) that I received formal confirmation from the police that the statements Siobhain was making at that time (and has consistently repeated since) about what the police had said to her, were untrue … 123. I was in a bad way emotionally at this time; I started experiencing anxiety attacks and was nervous about leaving the house, fearful that Siobhain was going to be out there. My ex-husband, Christian wrote to the Metropolitan Police on my behalf as he was witnessing first-hand the outcome of the ongoing harassment and was concerned for my welfare as I was alone in the house with my children. He wrote to the officer who had originally questioned me at Romford Police Station as Siobhain was alleging that she had been given information from the original investigation which was untrue and extremely worrying. As stated above, I have (many years since) had formal confirmation that this was not the case.” formal confirmation that this was not the case.”
“130 … It is difficult to put into words the distress and upset I felt when seeing that Siobhain’s public campaign against me had resumed, and that this time around she was using my name (at least on Twitter), and my professional details, including my telephone number. I know that Siobhain had around 2,500 followers on Twitter at this point, but I have no way of estimating how many people saw the GoFundMe campaign on the GoFundMe website. GoFundMe is a public platform that will email new campaigns out to its subscribers.”
“136. I remember breaking down when reading these posts; the stress of it all was overwhelming. I was fighting to keep my business afloat at this point during the pandemic, and I was now once again being falsely labelled a criminal. This time it was worse as I was being expressly identified and my name, business address and home address were easy to find online. Once again, I feared that, particularly once the lockdown was lifted, I might be targeted in person by Siobhain and/or by people acting on her encouragement. I once again felt extremely vulnerable and unsafe. I frequently checked Siobhain’s Twitter and Facebook accounts to try to keep on top of what was being said about me.”
“It was stated that the police had been ‘extremely keen to pursue proceedings’ against me, and that Siobhain was considering a ‘private criminal prosecution’. All of this was incredibly distressing to read. Yet more shocking, however, was that the supposed loss caused by my alleged actions had risen from£632,790.06 in the first Letter Before Claim (itself a ridiculous figure) to£1,442,156.30 , with no real explanation given for this enormous change. Whilst I had read reference to ‘£1.8 million ’ in one of Siobhan’s social media posts, I could not believe that professional lawyers were putting forward such a figure, and seeking interest of over£1 million on top, asking me to forward a sum of£2.4 million ‘within 14 days’. I felt that the intention was to intimidate me as much as possible.”
“… it appears that at some point in time (and unbeknownst to me), my Google business listing for Buckhurst Hill Counselling and Psychotherapy was somehow merged or connected with Siobhain’s APS listing. As above, I say this because the listing started to display Siobhain’s website, whereas I always had my own website. Based on research I did subsequently, I believe this to have been the result of an automated process by Google which owed to the fact that the businesses were similar and in similar categories.”
“I found a very disturbing Google Maps issue via Google Maps Help forums. Mike Blumenthal has uncovered that Google is merging competing businesses that have nearby addresses. Let me say that again, but show you an example, that was uncovered by Mike. Here are the results for two different hotels/motels in the same area, but that have different addresses. The map result for South Pier Inn displays the correct information, but their competitor, The Inn on Lake Superior is somehow merged into this record, showing the South Pier Inn's information and web address, while not showing the Inn on Lake Superior's information. They did however merge both hotel's phone numbers.”
“186. In short, I do not believe that I have ever done anything wrong or that anything I have done, or failed to do, has caused Siobhain loss, much less the kind of serious loss that she now ascribes to me. I have certainly never been dishonest or engaged in fraud, which is how Siobhain has always chosen to characterise my alleged actions. I have not deserved the horrid campaign of defamation and harassment that Siobhain has subjected me to. I believe that I am paying a high and warped price for rejecting Siobhain’s friendship, and for choosing to try to build my own business at a time when hers was struggling. Unfortunately, I cannot avoid the conclusion that she is motivated by jealousy and bitterness. 187. As touched upon at various points above, the feelings of stress, anxiety, fear, vulnerability, frustration, and sadness which I have variously felt since 2016 as a result of Siobhain’s actions have, at times, been overwhelming. This had a huge impact on my work. I found it difficult to sleep during the periods where she was particularly active in her hate campaign against me. This would leave me drained and depleted. I would cancel my clients and/or reduce my client list for periods of time to cope with what was happening …I was often tearful and distressed. It felt like a sustained attack over many years and to this day I feel as if it will never end.”
“Hi Caroline This could be that Google has the two business confused as one in the same. This happens more easily if both businesses are the same category or closely related categories.”
“18. D would have been aware of any anomalies on her site. She used her email address to register the listing, she would have been updated on a regular basis with web traffic statistics from Google and over the period, there would have been multiple confused customers querying where C was or worse , being purloined by D.”
“19. If the proposition that traffic would have been diverted from C to D, then it is reasonable to assume that a quantity of business that would have been utilised by C would have also been lost to D. It is left to the court to assess what level of damage has occurred as a result of D's actions.”
‘… this is a direct admission to creating the information contained in the listing …’) and that the police believed she had committed fraud (see eg at [30]: ‘…their belief of a criminal act of fraud as shared with your honour in court.’
“The fun continues with my wife’s business listing in Google Places! As expected, Google has unmerged her listing with the Windermere Real Estate office in Richland. But it’s since re-merged the listing and created an even bigger mess. Ready to follow along? Google emailed to let me know the merged-with-Richland issue was being fixed. Sure enough, the Richland office now has its own listing, no sign at all of anything related to Cari’s account. Good for them. In the meantime, I updated Cari’s business name while all this was going on. I removed ‘Windermere Real Estate’ and replaced it with ‘Real Estate Agent’, which seems to have helped disassociate the listing with the Windermere office listings. But her listing has been merged again … only not with the main Windermere office in Kennewick, and not with one of her fellow agents, but it’s been merged with two other agents in her same office. Here’s the link for the live version, and here’s a screenshot showing everything that’s screwed up with this listing. (click for larger version).”
“Siobhain Crosbie I must point out, I've done this for 14 years and most years I am fully booked up and I've never been accredited, barely have time other than to relax after work, but my experience is extensive and it's my rep not my letters that work for me. Just my experience so sharing. :)17 October 2013 at 21:10 · Siobhain Crosbie Miles I'm pleased your qualification has helped you. I don't have a masters, but I do have a permanently full list of clients and the majority 98 per cent of referrals come from previous clients. It's my actual work that's achieved that and I'm very proud of that alone, but if your masters got you a full list too on a pretty constant basis then that way has worked for you. I genuinely prefer my learning to have arisen from my experience and that's what sells me and that's what makes me feel proud so I think we simply have different perspectives of the "hot" jobs Siobhain Crosbie Hi Kay, one little tip from a successful practice, hand your cards to literally everyone you meet, and I mean everyone even at the checkout in your local supermarket, plus it takes time, if your good at what you do your reputation will spread, one client can equate to 5 plus new referrals and that in my opinion is the best way to grow a successful practice. Don't expect overnight success you will be disappointed, like everything it takes time and experience to build it up. :) good luck.4 January 2014 at 13:29. Siobhain Crosbie That sounds Irish marketing ops endless so didn't take it up, meant too busy to need it, but on reflection should have purely to get my name out more. Reputation everything :)28 November 2013 at 22:22 Siobhain Crosbie Thanks Jo, I will have a look but and I wholeheartedly admit this I have a brilliant ridiculously cheap web designer who has done the designing. I just gave him the content and let him run with it. I think this is often though where I find too many therapists fall down. Two sides of the business. The therapy and it's business presentation. Mine needs updating now but got two much going on (sic) and honestly my business thrives on referrals from current clients rather than the website. It doesn't do the job I think it should, but I don't mind as get enough work. Will take a look though and if you want my web designers num feel free to ask. :)3 April 2014 at 21:56”
“The calculation leads to a number that is extreme and potentially damaging to any case, civil or criminal.”
“27. A claim or application is totally without merit if it is bound to fail in the sense that there is no rational basis on which it could succeed …”
“The Defendant is a criminal fraudster. She is guilty of an offence of dishonesty. Despite having admitted to the police under caution that she is guilty of fraud, she has, deceitfully and unethically, withheld this information from the professional bodies. She is so dangerous and deceitful that her vulnerable clients need protection from being exploited by her.”
“Needless to say, this was, and is, an appalling false account of the whole situation, and invoking the safety of clients – as well as referring to having had cancer – in order to rally people to her cause, was despicable, but it is clear from the engagement that it worked. The APA Facebook page had 756 followers at this time and was a public group (so viewable by anyone). The followers were/are a mixture of colleagues in the counselling professions and members of the public who are interested in mental health issues. These groups of people represent potential room renting clients and counselling clients. My fear is that they, and potentially their wider circle or colleagues and friends, have been negatively influenced by the lies and misrepresentations posted by Siobhain in which my name, business name and location has been given.”
“151. My only means of removing this potentially highly damaging ‘review’ was to remove my Cherry Tree Therapy business listing entirely. My fear was that current and potential clients, therapists, and their clients would see the review and believe its contents, and that my response would not be sufficient to negate any damage. This would not only impact my work as a therapist, but also my colleagues who would then not want to be associated with the Cherry Tree Therapy Centre. My listing (once I had created it anew again) was typically seen by around 62 people per day during 2020 (see data at page 721 of CSL/1), so I would estimate that during the period that the review was visible it would have been seen by around 430 people – many of whom would have been existing clients or individuals searching for ‘therapy’. The Google My Business listing primarily drives traffic to the Cherry Tree website and helps people locate the Centre, while reviews help with pushing the listing higher through the Google algorithm. The new listing, that I had to replace it with, without any reviews, would (for a time) have been less prominent in Google search results than the older listing had been.”
“… the review highlights the unethical foundations on which you chose to build your private practice, basing all therapeutic engagement on your misrepresentation. This is a fundamental breech [sic] of trust and ethical practice with clients and fellow professionals. As such APA reserves the right and duty, (where the evidence, which, as you know is clear), to protect the integrity and principle of the therapeutic relationship. Protection of clients must be paramount. Professionals should be aware of and have trust in the integrity and ethics of their peers. Transparency of professional conduct should be a measure of good practice. APA will always support members that stand up against such unethical practices, for the protection of clients and professionals.”
“It would be good to share your experience of being so betrayed with other types of self-employed businesses & I'm sure you will get a lot of support. This character should have been weeded out & stopped from practicing but look at you now & all you have done for so very many! I believe in karma & good things are coming your way & I see it all the time”
“30. By publishing the statements set out above [the four defamatory publications complained of, plus an additional one] and in the Appendix to this Counterclaim, the Claimant pursued a course of conduct which she knew, or ought to have known, amounts to harassment of the Defendant contrary to sections 1(1) and 3 of the Protection from Harassment Act (PHA) 1997. 31. The nature of the allegations and the manner of, and persistence of their publication were calculated to cause alarm, fear and/or distress and were offensive and oppressive. The Claimant knew, or ought to have known, that they would have the effect, inter alia, of causing the Defendant unjustifiable alarm and distress. In addition to the Claimant’s harassing and threatening conduct, she encouraged others in the Defendant’s professional field to make abusive statements about her, greatly increasing the Defendant’s alarm and distress. 32. The Claimant’s statements have placed the Defendant in fear of violence, including the following set out in the Appendix: a. ‘I did, looking forward to the lying deceitful response, but I aired my thoughts lol I'd hate to get a pissed off very eloquently written email from myself. The underlying message is I slit your throat the next time you try to slit my therapists wallets lol. But I'm more professional than threatening death I have to be lol’ (14 March 2016 ) b. ‘Fingers crossed for me. Otherwise, it's other avenues like a hitman lol. And yes it's taken it's toll, my patience ran out tonight… I break her legs lol’ (19 January 2017 ) ‘Lol Anne, the temptation to punch her in the face was def there’ (13 May 2017 ) 33. She pursued her harassment in 2020, including stating on Facebook on31 May 2020 that: ‘… gone to all membership bodies prior to this, they refuse to either look at the evidence or find a reason not to ie. Not a member at the time of the offence et cetera and I’m coming to terms with few care, if clients are being deceived or worked with by unscrupulous therapists. I’ve kept silent for too long and I simply won’t do it anymore despite hating doing this I am facing it head-on as its the best I can do to protect clients.’” best I can do to protect clients.’”
“68. There are accordingly a number of key components of the tort. Crucially, there must be a course of conduct – two or more acts, that is things said or done, direct or indirect … 69. The nature of the tort of harassment was considered more generally by Nicklin J in Hayden v Dickinson[2020] EWHC 3291 (QB) . He characterised it as 'a persistent and deliberate course of unreasonable and oppressive conduct, targeted at another person, which is calculated to and does cause that person alarm, fear or distress'. The conduct 'must cross the boundary between that which is unattractive, even unreasonable, and conduct which is oppressive and unacceptable. To cross the border from the regrettable to the objectionable, the gravity of the misconduct must be of an order which would sustain criminal liability' ([40]).”
“25. Three further points may be added: (1) A person alleging harassment must prove a ‘course of conduct’ of a ‘harassing' nature. Section 7(3)(a) of the PHA provides that, in the case of conduct relating to a single person, this ‘must involve … conduct on at least two occasions in relation to that person’. But this is not of itself enough: a person alleging that conduct on two occasions amounts to a ‘course of conduct’ must show ‘a link between the two to reflect the meaning of the word 'course'’: Hipgrave v Jones[2005] 2 FLR 174 , para 74 (Tugendhat J). Accordingly, two isolated incidents separated in time by a period of months cannot amount to harassment: R v Hills[2001] 1 FLR 580 , para 25. In the harassment by publication case of Sube v NewsGroup Newspapers Ltd [2020] EMLR 25 I adopted and applied this interpretative approach, to distinguish between sets of newspaper articles which were "quite separate and distinct’. One set of articles followed the other ‘weeks later, prompted, on their face, by new events and new information, and they had different content’: paras 76(1) and 99 (and see also para 113(1)). (2) As Ms Wilson reminded us, where the claimant is, by choice, a public figure that should influence any assessment of whether particular conduct amounts to harassment of that individual; such a person has "inevitably and knowingly laid themselves open to close scrutiny of their every word and deed", and others can expect them to be more robust and tolerant accordingly: Porubova v Russia (Application No 8237/03) (unreported)8 October 2009 , para 45, and domestically, Trimingham v Associated Newspapers Ltd[2012] 4 All ER 717 , paras 249–250. (3) In a case of alleged harassment by publication the court, in order to protect the right to freedom of speech, ‘should take account of the extent to which the coverage complained of is repetitious and taunting, as opposed to being new, and prompted by some fresh newsworthy event. The imposition of liability in respect of coverage that falls in the latter category will be harder to justify’: Sube at para 106(2).” ‘should take account of the extent to which the coverage complained of is repetitious and taunting, as opposed to being new, and prompted by some fresh newsworthy event. The imposition of liability in respect of coverage that falls in the latter category will be harder to justify’: Sube at para 106(2).”
“When I read the Facebook threads and what Siobhain and others were saying about me, I broke down. I had spent years building up a good reputation, fighting to have a career against the odds, and to read that someone was trying to do everything in their power to ruin that, was truly heart breaking. I began panicking as I was working at the University at the time and the University had been named in the posts. Siobhain had also stated that she had contacted the University about me. Many students join these groups, and I was concerned that someone from the University would read the lies and believe them. I felt that I had no choice but to contact the University to make them aware of the situation. I was extremely anxious and upset as I risked losing my position at the University. I found the whole thing deeply exposing and humiliating.”
“There has, at no stage, been any evidence shown to suggest that Ms Crosbie was informed of anything that she has claimed by the MPS or specifically DC Yaw Annor.”
“… the decidedly ugly, even violent nature of these comments, together with the numerous posts which clearly were about me, really disturbed me, and left me feeling anxious and unsafe.”
“34. Counsel for C submitted that I should award C a single global sum to vindicate his reputation and compensate him for distress in relation to all the defamatory publications. I agree that in the circumstances that would appear to be the most efficient and just way of proceeding (as opposed to distinct awards). However, in determining the amount of such global award I proceed on the basis that judgment on any one of the Articles would ordinarily, and if assessed separately, give rise to a substantial award. 35. It was submitted to me that the question whether there should be separate awards in relation to defamation and harassment is one for my discretion. I accept that submission. In my judgment, in circumstances where there is a substantial (even if not a complete) overlap of the matters relied on for constituting libel and constituting harassment it would be wholly artificial to separate out the distress caused by the libels and the course of conduct amounting to harassment. I will accordingly make one award in relation to the libels and the course of conduct. That is not an uncommon course on this type of fact pattern, as the cases cited to me demonstrate.”
“The conduct of a defendant which may often be regarded as aggravating the injury to the plaintiff's feelings, so as to support a claim for 'aggravated' damages, includes a failure to make any or any sufficient apology and withdrawal; a repetition of the libel; conduct calculated to deter the claimant from proceeding; persistence, by way of a prolonged or hostile cross-examination of the claimant, or in turgid speeches to the jury, in a plea of justification which is bound to fail; the general conduct either of the preliminaries or of the trial itself in a manner calculated to attract wide publicity; and persecution of the plaintiff by other means. ‘[I]t is very well established that in cases where the damages are at large the jury (or the judge if the award is left to him) can take into account the motives and conduct of the defendant where they aggravate the injury done to the plaintiff. There may be malevolence or spite or the manner of committing the wrong may be such as to injure the plaintiff’s proper feelings of dignity and pride. These are matters which the jury can take into account in assessing the appropriate compensation.’ ‘The conduct of a defendant which may often be regarded as aggravating the injury to the plaintiff’s feelings, so as to support a claim for ‘aggravated’ damages, includes a failure to make any or any sufficient apology and withdrawal; a repetition of the libel; conduct calculated to deter the claimant from proceeding; persistence, by way of a prolonged or hostile cross-examination of the claimant, or in turgid speeches to the jury, in a plea of justification which is bound to fail; the general conduct either of the preliminaries or of the trial itself in a manner calculated to attract wide publicity; and persecution of the plaintiff by other means.’”
“38. I was not asked if I regretted the posts I made in relation to the defendant, to your honour I do regret them and would have acknowledged this if asked this question, I regret them, not because I don’t believe the content was inaccurate, but due to the fact it has led to more issues and caused harm to the defendant which does not detract from the harm she has caused myself , furthermore I have grown as a person and appreciate that albeit I spoke what I believed, it is at times, despite my sense of helplessness throughout the past 7 years, not the right action to take. I believed I was colluding by staying silent. 39. My passion for the integrity of a mental health profession, alongside my own knowledge, I openly accept, got the better of me. This has been a lesson for me. My actions provided the defendant the opportunity to deflect from the main allegations of Fraud and Torte.”
“(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. (2) The wording of any summary and the time, manner, form and place of its publication are to be for the parties to agree. (3) If the parties cannot agree on the wording, the wording is to be settled by the court. (4) If the parties cannot agree on the time, manner, form or place of publication, the court may give such directions as to those matters as it considers reasonable and practicable in the circumstances. (5) This section does not apply where the court gives judgment for the claimant undersection 8(3) of the Defamation Act 1996 (summary disposal of claims).”
“239. The purpose of this section is to provide a remedy that will assist the claimant in repairing the damage to his reputation and obtaining vindication. Orders under the section are not to be made as any sort of punishment of the defendant. 240. Orders under s 12 are discretionary both as to whether to order the publication of a summary and (if the parties do not agree) in what terms and where. Exercising the power to require a defendant to publish a summary of the Court's judgment is an interference with the defendant's Article 10 right. As such, the interference must be justified. The interference may be capable of being justified in pursuit of the legitimate aim of ‘the protection of the reputation or rights of others’. Whether an order under this section can achieve this aim will be a matter of fact in each case. If the interference represented by a s 12 order is justified, then the Court would then consider whether (if the parties agree) the terms of the summary to be published is proportionate. The Court should only make an order that the defendant publish a summary of the Court's judgment if there is a realistic prospect that one or other of these objectives will be realised and that the publication of a summary is necessary and proportionate to these objectives. 241. There is an obvious purpose, in an appropriate case, for ordering a newspaper to publish a summary of the judgment because there is a realistic basis on which to conclude that the published summary will come to the attention of at least some of those who read the original libel and others who may have learned about the allegation via the ‘grapevine’ effect. In a smaller scale publication, where it is possible for the original publishees (or at least a substantial number of them) to be identified, again an order requiring the publication to them of a summary of the judgment may well help realise the objectives underpinning s 12. Each case will depend upon its own facts. If the defendant has already published a retraction and apology then, depending upon its terms, that may mean that an order under s 12 is not justifiable or required. The claimant will be able to point to that to assist in his vindication or repair to his reputation.”