Last week on Thursday 30th January 2020, there was a hearing in Baker v Hemming. Three more passages of Esther Baker’s defamation claim were struck out, after she tried to include further allegations that Hemming raped her. The judge removed these sentences because Baker’s allegations of rape have already been ruled untrue. Meanwhile, MHN is finally able to report on a County Court judgement made late last year in which Baker was made subject to a lifelong restraining Order and damages for multiple counts of stalking, including racist stalking, of a proven child abuse victim who cannot be named for legal reasons.

Readers will be familiar with disturbing news personality Esther Baker. Like Carl Beech, Baker made untrue allegations. Specifically, she alleged that she was raped by (then MP) John Hemming. By Order and Reasons of 19th November 2019 (sealed 20th), High Court Judge Mrs Justice Steyn ruled that they were untrue, there was no public interest in repeating them and restrained Baker for life from doing so. The only outstanding legal question is whether Baker lied and whether she Perverted the Course of Justice, as opposed to (for example) making an innocent mistake.

Last year, much of Baker’s libel claim against former MP John Hemming was struck out and she lost the counterclaim, as set out in my article of the time and my follow-up article when the Order was made. Last week on Thursday 30th January 2020, there was another application. Baker had put in a revised version of her Reply to Defence in what remains of her claim. She had also put in a Part 18 Response. Shortly afterwards Baker faced an application to strike out the claim.

The same week MHN also obtained the complete transcript of a harassment case against Baker that took place last year. Your author has wanted to write about this for a long time but has been waiting for the official transcript of the judgement. Esther Baker was sued in the County Court by a child abuse victim. They have anonymity, so I will be blocking out their name, sex, location and the names of any lawyers from the judgement extracts.

However, MHN can reveal that Baker has been successfully sued under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 – anti-stalking legislation – for a years long campaign of racist stalking against a proven child abuse victim. The judge ruled on 20 allegations and found 16 to be true. Multiple counts were expressly found to be racist. Baker had caused the child abuse victim psychiatric injury.

The judge expressly accepted counsel for the victim’s argument that, “the Defendant’s conduct is vindictive, obsessive and unpredictable and that it has been particularly malevolent”.

Baker is appealing the harassment judgement and, bizarrely, portraying this as some kind of success on Twitter (archive) along with the fact that only 3 passages of her statements of case and not her whole claim were struck out. During the hearing on 30th January, Baker bizarrely argued that the finding her rape allegations were, “untrue” is a technicality. It was not. Baker deliberately chose to drop her defence of Truth as Mrs Justice Steyn very clearly noted.

Baker’s conduct was particularly vile. She has sought to portray her behaviour as legitimate challenge to allegations of sexual abuse. However, what she did went far further than mere criticism. The judge quoted multiple racist slurs (I will not say regarding which race to protect the victim). It was even alleged that Baker had even been in contact with the abuse victim’s convicted abuser to offer assistance with the abuser’s case.

All this ‘success’ has been expensive for Baker. Baker was made bankrupt last year and she presently owes John Hemming nearly £20,000 in costs. In addition to the damages she owes the child abuse victim, costs are to be assessed in the County Court and are estimated to be in the region of £28,000. So that is around £60,000 – and there is more to come as Hemming’s damages for her libel of him are yet to be assessed by the High Court.

Far more interesting than the strike-out judgement however was the fact that hitherto unknown Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) documents were put into evidence for the public hearing on 30th January. This means that they have passed into the public domain under CPR 32.12. Specifically, the original reasons the CPS gave for not charging John Hemming and the response to Baker’s “Victim’s Right of Review” (VRR) appeal.

The documents reveal that Baker has had auditory hallucinations (voices in her head) since she was a child. They also reveal that Baker has a history of making up stories for attention. These were apparently significant behavioural issues given they were also referred to in her medical records and given that her contemporaries specifically recall this about her decades later.

Although the evidence against Baker seems strong, it is important to note that the case is indeed going to trial. Whether she is a liar, mad or just mistaken is yet to be proven. However, Ms Baker has taken the very unusual course of formally declining to file evidence. It has been explained to her that if she does not do so then she will not be able to call witnesses. Even so, she persists. I was reminded of an episode of Blackadder, in which mad Captain Rum reveals his ship has no crew.

Blackadder: I was under the impression that it’s common maritime practice for a ship to have a crew?

Rum: Opinion is divided on the subject.

Blackadder: Oh, really?

Rum: All the other captains say it is. I say it isn’t

Baker intends to go to trial without evidence. Opinion is divided on the wisdom of this. Baker appears to think it is a good idea. That opinion is, *cough* a minority opinion.

Esther Baker has also made veiled threats to sue me for libel.

Let me be very clear. I can compare Baker to Carl Beech because her allegations against John Hemming have been found to be, “untrue” by a High Court Judge and because of their lurid nature and implausibility.

Whether or not Baker was lying is as yet unproven. It is a matter for trial (unless further grounds emerge to apply for strike-out or summary judgement). However, I can say that I believe that there should be a police investigation into whether they are lies and that I believe that there are grounds to suspect they are lies. I base this on, for example, the inconsistencies in Baker’s statements noted by the CPS and her refusal to answer questions put by John Hemming during the civil case as well as all the reasons set out in my previous article here.

One recent incident of suspicious behaviour by Baker was a failure to answer questions about her alleged rapist’s identifying characteristics. During the Staffordshire Police investigation into Baker’s claims, Hemming was told by police that she had identified two physical characteristics he does not have – a birthmark and an intimate feature. Hemming also identified that he had a feature that she did not mention. A mark on a leg.

After Hemming raised the leg mark in pleadings, Baker added a new element to her pleadings saying her abuser had a mark on his leg. This was not in her original Particulars of Claim. So, Hemming asked which leg. He asked the colour of it and the shape of it. If this mark was burned into Baker’s mind for decades, she should be able to answer. Baker refuses to answer, which leads to the suspicion that she only knows what Hemming recently mentioned in his pleadings. Which leg, Esther?

I can say without fear of libel that Baker is a proven, malevolent, racist stalker based on the County Court judgement. I can say that she is obsessive and that she damaged the health of a proven child abuse victim. I noting in passing for what it is worth, that Baker has filed an appeal. I can say that she has made untrue allegations of child abuse. Unfortunately for Esther Baker, I have an LL.M LPC (Commendation), nearly 10 years of experience as a McKenzie Friend and have assisted in 5 libel cases.

For all Esther Baker’s empty threats, she has huge debts and is likely to be made bankrupt again as soon as the first bankruptcy expires later this year. The reason for this is several debts occurred after the bankruptcy and are not incorporated into it. If she tried to sue me for accurately quoting the court judgements that she has engaged in racist stalking or made untrue allegations of child abuse she may get to go bankrupt for a third time.

Turning to Baker’s reference to police investigations, Staffordshire Police Professional Standards are investigating a police complaint I have made. The officer investigating has told me in writing that there is in fact no evidence he can find that Staffordshire have ever investigated me as a result of Baker’s complaints.

It is important also for members of the public to understand that even though they may not be subject to injunctions, helping Baker breach her restraining Orders or trying to circumvent them could land a prison sentence for contempt. Furthermore, they could land a free-standing libel case. Bankruptcy beckons for anyone foolish enough to support Esther Baker.

Several apparently well meaning members of the public like Brian P Willmot have been found making posts (archive) supporting Baker. Given the woman Mr Willmot is supporting is a proven racist stalker, perhaps he should reconsider. If not, he may receive formal legal contact from Hemming or his representatives in due course.

Whatever the outcome of the trial, what is now clear is that Staffordshire Police squandered vast amounts of public funds on the words of a mentally ill woman known to have a history of making up stories for attention and for which there was no forensic evidence. There must be answers into how this occurred and action must be taken to ensure police officers are held accountable.

Numerous institutions, such as IICSA, deserve scrutiny for their role in this scandal, as do Exaro ‘journalists’ like Mark Watts and David Hencke. MHN will be producing a series of articles over the coming weeks.