Pearson v Chief Constable of Essex Police & Anor [2026] EWHC 961 (KB) (24 April 2026)

Pearson v Chief Constable of Essex Police & Anor [2026] EWHC 961 (KB) (24 April 2026)

The police press statements of 13 and 16 November 2024, Mr Hirst's LBC interview, and his Conservative Home article all bore a Chase Level 3 meaning: that there were grounds to investigate the claimant for an alleged offence of inciting racial hatred, but did not impute reasonable grounds to suspect her of the offence or intentional dishonesty. The 21 November 2024 police statement, stating no further action would be taken, was not defamatory. Whether the imputation that the claimant gave a false account is itself defamatory is to be determined at trial.

Citation
[2026] EWHC 961 (KB)
Parties
Claimant: Judith Allison Pearson; First Defendant: Chief Constable of Essex Police; Second Defendant: Roger Hirst
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 April 2026
Procedural Posture
Libel (defamation) – Preliminary Issues / Determination of Preliminary Issues on Meaning and Defamatory Tendency at Common Law
Outcome
Preliminary issues determined: meanings found as set out; some issues reserved for trial.
Legal Topics
Libel, Defamatory Meaning, Chase Levels, Police Statements, Freedom of Speech, Threshold of Seriousness, Repetition Rule
Defamation Media Law Tort Libel Defamatory Meaning Chase Levels Police Statements Freedom of Speech +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Judith Allison Pearson

Claimant

Chief Constable of Essex Police

First Defendant

Roger Hirst

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Libel (defamation) – Preliminary Issues / Determination of Preliminary Issues on Meaning and Defamatory Tendency at Common Law

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the natural and ordinary meaning of the words complained of in the police press statements, radio interview, and article?
  2. 2 Are those words defamatory at common law?

Ratio Decidendi

The police press statements of 13 and 16 November 2024, Mr Hirst's LBC interview, and his Conservative Home article all bore a Chase Level 3 meaning: that there were grounds to investigate the claimant for an alleged offence of inciting racial hatred, but did not impute reasonable grounds to suspect her of the offence or intentional dishonesty. The 21 November 2024 police statement, stating no further action would be taken, was not defamatory. Whether the imputation that the claimant gave a false account is itself defamatory is to be determined at trial.

Court Disposition

Preliminary issues determined: meanings found as set out; some issues reserved for trial.

Orders

  • Determination of natural and ordinary meaning of the words complained of as set out in the judgment.
  • Determination that the 13 and 16 November 2024 police statements, the LBC interview, and the Conservative Home article bear a Chase Level 3 defamatory meaning at common law.