Packham to pay £200,000

shbangsteve

Well-Known Member

Chris Packham ‘forced to pay £200,000 to pensioner’ after libel case​


Legal costs for country sportsman who proofread defamatory articles ‘are double damages’ TV presenter won from editor and writer




Chris Packham has been forced to pay £200,000 to a pensioner and country sportsman he was accused of pursuing ‘vindictively” through the courts, it has been claimed.
In 2023, the naturalist and BBC presenter was awarded £90,000 in damages after the High Court upheld his defamation claims against two contributors to Country Squire, an online magazine that wrongly accused him of misleading people into donating to a tiger rescue charity.
But his case against Paul Read, a 70-year-old grandfather who was the proofreader for some of the magazine articles, was thrown out by the High Court judge.
It meant Packham, 63, became liable for the pensioner’s legal costs, and Mr Read has now claimed his damages have been dwarfed by that bill.
It is understood the Springwatch presenter had to pay £196,008, more than double the £90,000 he was awarded as damages.

Paul Read with his labrador Blue

Paul Read, who says his costs have made Chris Packham’s libel case win a ‘Pyrrhic victory’, with his labrador Blue

“It looks to have been something of a pyrrhic victory for Mr Packham,” Mr Read said from his home in Selby, North Yorkshire.
Mr Read added: “I felt violated. I believe Packham’s pursuit of me was vindictive. I am so relieved all this is behind me now and I can get on and enjoy what’s left of my retirement. It has been a tough time.”
Mr Read, a retired IT consultant and father of three grown-up children, was informed by Leigh Day, Packham’s solicitors, in March 2021 that he was being sued. He feared that if he lost, he could lose his family home.
He added: “The case, after the initial exchange of letters that March, dragged on until the judge threw out the case against me in 2023. That is a long time for my wife and I to be under that sort of stress.”
Mr Read said he had proofread two of the articles Packham complained about as a favour to a friend.
Dominic Wightman and Nigel Bean, the editor and writer of Country Squire, were found to have defamed Packham in May 2023.
They were ordered to pay the damages after their articles falsely claimed the presenter played the “Asperger’s victim card” and had lied to appeal for donations for a tiger rescue charity.
Packham claimed the articles meant he feared he would not “live a long life free from violence and intimidation”.

OAP had no editorial responsibility​

The judge ruled that Packham had not taken part in any fraud. However, he found that Mr Read “had no editorial or equivalent responsibility”, and dismissed the case against him.
Tessa Gregory, of Leigh Day, who refused to confirm or deny the £200,000 costs payment, said: “Our client was forced to challenge the serious and damaging lies being published about him, which not only disparaged him personally but also his work for wildlife charities.
“Whilst the court found that Mr Read was a mere proofreader, our client was entirely vindicated in the judgment in relation to Mr Wightman and Mr Bean.
“The court concluded that, contrary to the articles published, our client did not lie, each of his statements was made with a genuine belief in its truth and there was no fraud of any type committed by him.
“This provides a strong deterrent to anyone who sets out to gratuitously smear someone’s character simply because they don’t agree with their views.”
Packham did not respond to a request for comment
 
Live by the sword, die by the sword, it's an old adage. Packman and his "wild justice" friends are making a lot of mischief via the courts, so it great to see it bouncing back hard.

It's all for show and is wasting a huge amount of money via his funders (the public) and the Government bodies costs.

The contributelion to conservation is difficult to measure.
 
Live by the sword, die by the sword, it's an old adage. Packman and his "wild justice" friends are making a lot of mischief via the courts, so it great to see it bouncing back hard.

It's all for show and is wasting a huge amount of money via his funders (the public) and the Government bodies costs.

The contributelion to conservation is difficult to measure.
Wild Justice and Packham appear to be distanced from any practical conservation effort.
 
It seems that the way to stay relevant in today's society and be in the public eye is to sue someone. That foreign prince, wossname, um, Harry does the same thing regularly.
 
Despite what Packman’s legal team claimed about it being proven that he didn’t commit fraud, I don’t think that was what the judge actually said. I believe it was more the case that the Squire didn’t prove that he did.
Very pleased to see that he’s finally got to put his hand in his wallet.
 
Live by the sword, die by the sword, it's an old adage. Packman and his "wild justice" friends are making a lot of mischief via the courts, so it great to see it bouncing back hard.

It's all for show and is wasting a huge amount of money via his funders (the public) and the Government bodies costs.

The contributelion to conservation is difficult to measure.
I would be interested in reading Counsel's Opinion/Advice as to merit and risk that Chwis was given, and never forget it is only and Opinion and advice he received he did not have to follow it!!!

Patrick
 
I would be interested in reading Counsel's Opinion/Advice as to merit and risk that Chwis was given, and never forget it is only and Opinion and advice he received he did not have to follow it!!!

Patrick
When you keep on winning you start to forget that one day you might lose. He’s too stupid and stubborn to take advice from people who he thinks are beneath him.
Are Barclays taking action about his latest comments?
 


I didn't want to start another thread about the fella, this podcast gives glimpses of his true colours.
I couldn't hack the full thing so thought with the love he receives on SD this would be appreciated. 😁
 
Back
Top