[ad_1]
Chris Packham has been pressured to pay £200,000 to a pensioner and nation sportsman he was accused of pursuing ‘vindictively” via the courts, it has been claimed.
In 2023, the naturalist and BBC presenter was awarded £90,000 in damages after the Excessive Court docket upheld his defamation claims against two contributors to Country Squire, an internet journal that wrongly accused him of deceptive individuals into donating to a tiger rescue charity.
However his case in opposition to Paul Learn, a 70-year-old grandfather who was the proofreader for a few of the journal articles, was thrown out by the Excessive Court docket decide.
It meant Packham, 63, grew to become accountable for the pensioner’s authorized prices, and Mr Learn has now claimed his damages have been dwarfed by that invoice.
It’s understood the Springwatch presenter needed to pay £196,008, greater than double the £90,000 he was awarded as damages.
“It seems to be to have been one thing of a pyrrhic victory for Mr Packham,” Mr Learn mentioned from his residence in Selby, North Yorkshire.
Mr Learn added: “I felt violated. I consider Packham’s pursuit of me was vindictive. I’m so relieved all that is behind me now and I can get on and revel in what’s left of my retirement. It has been a troublesome time.”
Mr Learn, a retired IT guide and father of three grown-up kids, was knowledgeable by Leigh Day, Packham’s solicitors, in March 2021 that he was being sued. He feared that if he misplaced, he might lose his household residence.
He added: “The case, after the preliminary trade of letters that March, dragged on till the decide threw out the case in opposition to me in 2023. That’s a very long time for my spouse and I to be below that kind of stress.”
Mr Learn mentioned he had proofread two of the articles Packham complained about as a favour to a buddy.
Dominic Wightman and Nigel Bean, the editor and author of Nation Squire, have been discovered to have defamed Packham in Could 2023.
They have been ordered to pay the damages after their articles falsely claimed the presenter performed the “Asperger’s sufferer card” and had lied to attraction for donations for a tiger rescue charity.
Packham claimed the articles meant he feared he wouldn’t “stay an extended life free from violence and intimidation”.
OAP had no editorial accountability
The decide dominated that Packham had not taken half in any fraud. Nonetheless, he discovered that Mr Learn “had no editorial or equal accountability”, and dismissed the case in opposition to him.
Tessa Gregory, of Leigh Day, who refused to substantiate or deny the £200,000 prices cost, mentioned: “Our consumer was pressured to problem the intense and damaging lies being printed about him, which not solely disparaged him personally but in addition his work for wildlife charities.
“While the courtroom discovered that Mr Learn was a mere proofreader, our consumer was solely vindicated within the judgment in relation to Mr Wightman and Mr Bean.
“The courtroom concluded that, opposite to the articles printed, our consumer didn’t lie, every of his statements was made with a real perception in its reality and there was no fraud of any kind dedicated by him.
“This supplies a robust deterrent to anybody who units out to gratuitously smear somebody’s character just because they don’t agree with their views.”
Packham didn’t reply to a request for remark
[ad_2]
Source
