Judith Allison Pearson v Chief Constable of Essex Police & Anor

Judith Allison Pearson v Chief Constable of Essex Police & Anor

The police statements of 13 and 16 November 2024, Mr Hirst's LBC interview, and the Conservative Home article all bore Chase Level 3 meanings: that there were grounds to investigate Ms Pearson for an alleged offence of inciting racial hatred, but not that there were reasonable grounds to suspect her of the offence. The 21 November 2024 police statement, which recorded no further action, was not defamatory. The statements that Ms Pearson had provided a false account of her interaction with police did not impute intentional dishonesty and whether they are defamatory will be determined at trial.

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
Civil Defamation (libel) / Preliminary Issues Determination (meaning and Defamatory Tendency at Common Law)
Outcome
Preliminary issues determined; meanings established; no final determination on liability or damages.
Legal Topics
Libel, Meaning of Words, Defamatory Tendency, Police Statements, Freedom of Expression
Defamation Media Law Libel Meaning of Words Defamatory Tendency Police Statements Freedom of Expression

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 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Judith Allison Pearson

Claimant

Chief Constable of Essex Police

First Defendant

Roger Hirst

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Defamation (libel) / Preliminary Issues Determination (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 statements, radio interview, and article?
  2. 2 Are those words defamatory at common law?

Ratio Decidendi

The police statements of 13 and 16 November 2024, Mr Hirst's LBC interview, and the Conservative Home article all bore Chase Level 3 meanings: that there were grounds to investigate Ms Pearson for an alleged offence of inciting racial hatred, but not that there were reasonable grounds to suspect her of the offence. The 21 November 2024 police statement, which recorded no further action, was not defamatory. The statements that Ms Pearson had provided a false account of her interaction with police did not impute intentional dishonesty and whether they are defamatory will be determined at trial.

Court Disposition

Preliminary issues determined; meanings established; no final determination on liability or damages.

Orders

  • The meanings of the words complained of are as set out in the judgment.
  • The defamatory tendency of the 'false account' meaning is to be determined at trial.