‘The Packham 3’ Defamation Defence Against Chris Packham

by Supporters of the Packham 3

‘The Packham 3’ Defamation Defence Against Chris Packham

by Supporters of the Packham 3
Supporters of the Packham 3
Case Owner
We support an Editor, an Author and a Spellchecker. For more details you can read all about their case on Country Squire Magazine.
13
days to go
£43,805
pledged of £250,000 stretch target from 1,007 pledges
Pledge now
Supporters of the Packham 3
Case Owner
We support an Editor, an Author and a Spellchecker. For more details you can read all about their case on Country Squire Magazine.
Pledge now

This case is raising funds for its stretch target. Your pledge will be collected within the next 24-48 hours (and it only takes two minutes to pledge!)

Latest: Sept. 23, 2022

A Progress Update

An update on the case from the three defendants , Dom, Nigel and Paul.

Please keep sharing so we reach out to more supporters.
https://countrysquire.co.uk/2022/09/23/packham-3-september-update/

Read more

The Editor of Country Squire Magazine, Dom Wightman, alongside Nigel Bean and Paul Read who are contributors to the magazine, are currently being sued for defamation by BBC Presenter Chris Packham regarding a collection of articles that were published by the magazine. Here is some background on the magazine: https://countrysquire.co.uk/about/

In 2020 an investigation began and various articles were written and published on the magazine website and subsequently shared on various social media platforms. The articles concerned some tigers rehomed to the Wild Heart Animal Sanctuary on the Isle of Wight.

The ‘Packham 3’ as they have come to be known have appointed their legal team and are currently working towards the first stage of their defence. They must submit their defences by the 1st of April 2022. There will then be a case management conference at the end of April and the next court date – the main trial – is due to take place sometime in the Autumn of 2022. These initial stages’ costs are estimated to be around £20k.

The Packham 3 are defending this legal action.

Please could you share this far and wide so this gets as much exposure as possible to ensure we can get the initial funding in as quickly as possible.

We sincerely thank you for your generosity.

The independent organisers of this Crowd Justice fundraiser will provide updates on here as and when the case develops.

Update 8

Supporters of the Packham 3

Sept. 23, 2022

A Progress Update

An update on the case from the three defendants , Dom, Nigel and Paul.

Please keep sharing so we reach out to more supporters.
https://countrysquire.co.uk/2022/09/23/packham-3-september-update/

Update 7

Supporters of the Packham 3

Aug. 8, 2022

Confirmed Court Date

Last week the Packham 3 received an important date for their diaries:

“A 7-day Trial on the above-named matter has been fixed for the 2nd of May 2023”, came the note from their Barrister’s secretary.

So, there it is. The defendants have 9 months before the trial of their lives begins. That is 9 months to raise the best part of £200,000 in legal fees, to make sure their evidence is all in order and that their legal team is ready.

These 9 months will be massive. We shall keep you all updated as events unfold. There are expert witnesses, disclosure and case management conferences to come before the High Court appearance in May. 

The Fundraising Team, the Research Team, the Investigations Team and the Security Team finally all have a set date to work to. The PR Team, which has been waiting in the wings all this time, now comes to the fore and a press officer appointment shall be made in due course.

“Good to have a date,” declared Dominic Wightman aka Defendant 1, when he was told of the court date. “This has been dragging on since March 2021 and by the time it’s all over we will have waited over 2 years before we can defend our published articles. The road has many obstacles to meet but good things come to those who wait!”

Please continue to send in your donations and spread the word. The wider awareness we get, the quicker we get the case fully funded ready for the Packham 3 defendants day in court.

Thank you once again for your continued support. The Packham 3 are truly thankful for everyone's support.

The Packham 3 Fundraising Team 

Update 6

Supporters of the Packham 3

July 11, 2022

Summary of Outcome of Case Management Conference

Summary of Outcome of Case Management Conference

On Thursday 30th June 2022 there was a case management conference for our case attended by our barrister. Packham’s side saw fit to send five lawyers, including two junior barristers, for the hearing which began at 1030 a.m. and, following a slightly extended break over lunch, finally finished just before 1800.

The morning dealt with the question of whether the parties should be allowed to call experts to address certain aspects of the case, and the afternoon with the cost's budgets, including the proportionality of Packham’s half a million-pound budget.

The Master has now made Directions for the next steps in the action, and we were pleased with the outcome of the hearing. The headline points arising from the case management conference are:

  1. Packham did not want there to be expert evidence on any of the key issues in the case, which have developed in our Defence and his Reply. Despite his protests, the Court granted permission for us to use three experts, on a basis which includes us serving further particulars of our case along with our expert evidence, after which Packham will serve his own particulars and expert evidence. This will have to take place by the end of September 2022. Our experts will address three issues: (1) an analysis of Packham’s handwriting to test our allegation that he faked his own death threat letter (2) animal behaviour, to look at the scientific evidence as to whether keeping big cats in the circus is inherently cruel and (3) the evidence relating to the question of whether muirburns (which are used to maintain grouse moors) result in the burning of peat. In relation to the second and third issues, we will also give details of our case about Packham’s alleged knowledge of these issues.
  2. The trial is going to take place between 1 May and 31 July 2023, so we won’t be rushed into a trial immediately after Christmas as Packham wanted. We were sad to hear that this will potentially interfere with Packham’s filming commitments, which he said meant there should be an early trial, but the timescale gives us the opportunity to gather support for our case, and funds.
  3. The Court made an adverse comment on the costs of Packham issuing and pleading his case, which were part of the £160k in costs that he incurred before the Court could exercise any kind of control over them, saying that these were “distinctly high” and that a costs judge should consider any explanation given in relation to them very carefully.
  4. The Court also ruled that Packham should not be instructing two barristers and adjusted his costs accordingly, although his costs remain intimidatingly high, and are at levels which his own barrister (in another case) called “life-changing”.

The case continues. We shall update you as and when there are further developments. We will also go public with the further particulars of our case (mentioned in 1. above) as soon as we can. Thank you very much indeed for your support so far. Let’s keep the donations coming. Kindest regards.


Update 5

Supporters of the Packham 3

June 14, 2022

An Important Update on the Case

The “Packham Three” are the defendants in the High Court case of Packham v. Wightman and others (QB-2021-001227). The three individual defendants are Dominic Wightman, Nigel Bean and Paul Read. The Claimant is the well-known BBC presenter and activist Chris Packham CBE.

The defendants published a series of articles online in Country Squire Magazine about Mr Packham’s fundraising activities for the purposes of re-homing tigers in a zoo run by his girlfriend. The articles alleged that Mr Packham was dishonest in a number of ways, including about the circumstances in which he obtained the tigers, in failing to mention that the zoo benefited from a Covid insurance policy, and in his statements about peat burning by gamekeepers during COP26.

The defendants have been sued personally for defamation by Mr Packham and his solicitors, Leigh Day, over a total of 19 separate publications on the Country Squire website and on social media, under what they believe is a “no win, no fee” agreement. Mr Packham is seeking damages of up to £100,000 and asking the Court to approve legal costs, for which all three defendants may be liable, of over £500,000.

The Packham Three ask for your help to fight their legal battle against Mr Packham to a full trial in the High Court, which will determine whether the defendants were entitled to publish what they did about Mr Packham, and whether he should be awarded costs and damages.

What is the case about? 

Mr Packham is widely known for his appearances on the BBC, as well as for campaigning for animal rights and environmental issues. He has a large social media following, where he promotes his non-BBC campaigns and his partner’s zoo on the Isle of Wight (the Wildheart Trust). His campaigning, including through the organisation “Wild Justice”, has brought him into conflict with farmers, field sports participants, and many of those who live and work in the countryside.

In 2018, Mr Packham made a number of statements in support of a fundraising campaign for a group of ex-circus tigers destined for the Wildheart Trust. These statements amounted to claims that tigers had been mistreated by their former owners in a circus and were being “rescued” by the Wildheart Trust. Very significant funds were raised from the public as a result.

Nigel Bean set out to investigate these claims but did not find the evidence to support them. In a series of articles - written by Nigel Bean and edited by Dominic Wightman – Country Squire identified the gap between Mr Packham’s account of his “rescue” of the tigers and the reality. In fact, Mr Packham was re-homing the tigers after their previous owners worked with an animal rights lawyer to donate them to a renowned international animal welfare organisation, which had taken them to live at Primadomus, its site in Spain, where they enjoyed excellent facilities and specialised care.

Mr Packham’s case is that during the course of the two year process of arranging for the tigers to be re-homed by the Wildheart Trust and after visiting them at the sanctuary where they lived in Spain: he learned nothing about the detailed circumstances of the donation by the circus; he and his partner did not watch a video featuring the tigers available on YouTube about the background to the donation or the motivations of the circus family; and that it was correct to describe taking the animals from their comfortable lives at Primadomus to the Isle of Wight as a “rescue”.  He says that keeping wild animals in circuses is “inherently detrimental to their welfare”.

As far as the £500,000 business interruption insurance pay-out is concerned, he says that it was not “open to” him to mention this when fundraising because he did not know whether it would pay out, how much the pay-out would be, or whether it would cover the Wildheart Trust’s losses.

Mr Packham linked on his Twitter account to an article which referred to a film by activists which showed two Muirburns in Cairngorms National Park, saying “grouse moors  burn  peat  during  @COP26  &  their  apologists  pedal  the  same old lies” (sic). The film showed two lawful and controlled Muirburns. Mr Packham says he does not remember watching the film before posting and that it in fact showed peat being burned on grouse moors because, according to him, “any burning of moorland is in fact likely to burn peat”.

The Packham Three are defending their statements on two grounds: first that they were true and second that it, in the circumstances, it was reasonable for them to believe that it was in the public interest to publish them. The defendants are absolutely confident that their allegations were both true and justified.

The case so far 

There has been one hearing so far, at which Mr Justice Johnson determined the meaning of the defendants’ publications (“the meaning hearing”). The defendants represented themselves at that hearing, which did not consider evidence, but decided what the single meaning of the defendants’ publications was for the purposes of the dispute over whether the defendants were entitled to publish them.

What happens next?

There is a further procedural hearing coming up at the end of June, at which Mr Packham will seek the Court’s approval for his costs budget of £502,113.85.

The case will then progress towards a trial at some point in 2023, via disclosure and the exchange of witness statements. During the trial, it is likely that all of the parties, including Mr Packham, will give evidence.

What is the money for? 

No expense has been spared by Leigh Day, who specialise in no win, no fee agreements, most prominently in respect of their pursuit of compensation claims against the Ministry of Defence over the actions of British soldiers in the Iraq War. They have also represented Wild Justice, including in their challenges to the system of licences for killing wild birds.

Leigh Day previously asked the Court to approve a budget for the meaning hearing at a cost of 100% more than the usual costs cap which is applied (the Court refused this request). Leigh Day claim to have already incurred costs of £167,264.06, and claim that it will cost a further £334,849.78 to get to trial. Despite the Court at the meaning hearing finding that there was an “overlap” between the publications, Mr Packham has included 19 separate publications and taken no steps to focus the dispute to control costs. The Defendants have been sued personally, Mr Read continuing to be included despite having no meaningful role in the articles, and each one is liable for the full sum of costs and damages.

The Defendants have argued that because of the difference between their public profiles, Mr Packham’s exorbitant costs, the unnecessary scale of the litigation, and the fact that they have been sued personally, the case is a “SLAPP” (a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation), which is intended to intimidate them into silence. Mr Packham has not responded to this point.  

Without support the defendants cannot afford to pay their own specialist defamation lawyers - a firm of solicitors and a barrister - to defend their journalism and take the case to trial, or protect themselves against Mr Packham’s costs.

Why does this case matter? 

Country Squire Editor Dominic Wightman said “Having to raise hundreds of thousands of pounds to have the light shone on the facts seems ridiculous but that is the reality we are facing because the Claimant, Packham, has sued us as individuals. Add to that personal cost the daily bombardment from Packham-supporting trolls and we have had to dig deep. We are strong. Bring on the main trial. The sooner the better.

“We cannot wait to get the facts out there. We now have a superb legal and research team in place and we have refused to buckle before demands that we should apologise and remove the articles. The support from the Countryside has been amazing both through Crowd Justice and direct to our lawyers. Thanks to all of you for giving us the chance to defend ourselves and our articles against Packham.”

The case focuses on the specific allegations about the tigers, the zoo, and the Muirburns. These might be considered obscure issues, of little interest to the wider countryside in the UK. But this is to miss the bigger point about Mr Packham’s high profile campaigning and fund-raising activities. If he wins this case, his activities and influence will continue unabated. If he loses, or even if his evidence is rejected in part, his credibility as an honest campaigner will be seriously diminished.

If you ride a horse (whether or not to hounds), farm livestock, show your livestock in agricultural shows, keep pigs or poultry, shoot in any capacity, go fly fishing, coarse or sea fishing, are dependent upon the wider rural community for your business or recreation, if you build drystone walls or lay hedgerows or plant trees, in fact if you undertake just about any form of management of the countryside, then this case is not just about tigers. It is about you too.

The defendants are confident of winning this case on the basis of truth.

But they need your generous help.

‘Three Legged Lewis’

June 2022

Further Information

For those wishing to plunge into legal detail:

For those wishing to read the original articles in CSM:


For an excellent and rapid review of the story, containing almost exactly the same information as the early CSM articles, The Daily Mail article is here: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9069615/Did-Chris-Packhams-claims-tiger-cruelty-people-thousands.html


Update 4

Supporters of the Packham 3

June 14, 2022

A Major Update On the Case

The “Packham Three” are the defendants in the High Court case of Packham v. Wightman and others (QB-2021-001227). The three individual defendants are Dominic Wightman, Nigel Bean and Paul Read. The Claimant is the well-known BBC presenter and activist Chris Packham CBE.

The defendants published a series of articles online in Country Squire Magazine about Mr Packham’s fundraising activities for the purposes of re-homing tigers in a zoo run by his girlfriend. The articles alleged that Mr Packham was dishonest in a number of ways, including about the circumstances in which he obtained the tigers, in failing to mention that the zoo benefited from a Covid insurance policy, and in his statements about peat burning by gamekeepers during COP26.

The defendants have been sued personally for defamation by Mr Packham and his solicitors, Leigh Day, over a total of 19 separate publications on the Country Squire website and on social media, under what they believe is a “no win, no fee” agreement. Mr Packham is seeking damages of up to £100,000 and asking the Court to approve legal costs, for which all three defendants may be liable, of over £500,000.

The Packham Three ask for your help to fight their legal battle against Mr Packham to a full trial in the High Court, which will determine whether the defendants were entitled to publish what they did about Mr Packham, and whether he should be awarded costs and damages.

What is the case about? 

Mr Packham is widely known for his appearances on the BBC, as well as for campaigning for animal rights and environmental issues. He has a large social media following, where he promotes his non-BBC campaigns and his partner’s zoo on the Isle of Wight (the Wildheart Trust). His campaigning, including through the organisation “Wild Justice”, has brought him into conflict with farmers, field sports participants, and many of those who live and work in the countryside.

In 2018, Mr Packham made a number of statements in support of a fundraising campaign for a group of ex-circus tigers destined for the Wildheart Trust. These statements amounted to claims that tigers had been mistreated by their former owners in a circus, and were being “rescued” by the Wildheart Trust. Very significant funds were raised from the public as a result.

Nigel Bean set out to investigate these claims but did not find the evidence to support them. In a series of articles - written by Nigel Bean and edited by Dominic Wightman – Country Squire identified the gap between Mr Packham’s account of his “rescue” of the tigers and the reality. In fact, Mr Packham was re-homing the tigers after their previous owners worked with an animal rights lawyer to donate them to a renowned international animal welfare organisation, which had taken them to live at Primadomus, its site in Spain, where they enjoyed excellent facilities and specialised care.

Mr Packham’s case is that during the course of the two year process of arranging for the tigers to be re-homed by the Wildheart Trust and after visiting them at the sanctuary where they lived in Spain: he learned nothing about the detailed circumstances of the donation by the circus; he and his partner did not watch a video featuring the tigers available on YouTube about the background to the donation or the motivations of the circus family; and that it was correct to describe taking the animals from their comfortable lives at Primadomus to the Isle of Wight as a “rescue”.  He says that keeping wild animals in circuses is “inherently detrimental to their welfare”.

As far as the £500,000 business interruption insurance pay-out is concerned, he says that it was not “open to” him to mention this when fundraising because he did not know whether it would pay out, how much the pay-out would be, or whether it would cover the Wildheart Trust’s losses.

Mr Packham linked on his Twitter account to an article which referred to a film by activists which showed two Muirburns in Cairngorms National Park, saying “grouse moors  burn  peat  during  @COP26  &  their  apologists  pedal  the  same old lies” (sic). The film showed two lawful and controlled Muirburns. Mr Packham says he does not remember watching the film before posting and that it in fact showed peat being burned on grouse moors because, according to him, “any burning of moorland is in fact likely to burn peat”.

The Packham Three are defending their statements on two grounds: first that they were true and second that it, in the circumstances, it was reasonable for them to believe that it was in the public interest to publish them. The defendants are absolutely confident that their allegations were both true and justified.

The case so far 

There has been one hearing so far, at which Mr Justice Johnson determined the meaning of the defendants’ publications (“the meaning hearing”). The defendants represented themselves at that hearing, which did not consider evidence, but decided what the single meaning of the defendants’ publications was for the purposes of the dispute over whether the defendants were entitled to publish them.

What happens next?

There is a further procedural hearing coming up at the end of June, at which Mr Packham will seek the Court’s approval for his costs budget of £502,113.85.

The case will then progress towards a trial at some point in 2023, via disclosure and the exchange of witness statements. During the trial, it is likely that all of the parties, including Mr Packham, will give evidence.

What is the money for? 

No expense has been spared by Leigh Day, who specialise in no win, no fee agreements, most prominently in respect of their pursuit of compensation claims against the Ministry of Defence over the actions of British soldiers in the Iraq War. They have also represented Wild Justice, including in their challenges to the system of licences for killing wild birds.

Leigh Day previously asked the Court to approve a budget for the meaning hearing at a cost of 100% more than the usual costs cap which is applied (the Court refused this request). Leigh Day claim to have already incurred costs of £167,264.06, and claim that it will cost a further £334,849.78 to get to trial. Despite the Court at the meaning hearing finding that there was an “overlap” between the publications, Mr Packham has included 19 separate publications and taken no steps to focus the dispute to control costs. The Defendants have been sued personally, Mr Read continuing to be included despite having no meaningful role in the articles, and each one is liable for the full sum of costs and damages.

The Defendants have argued that because of the difference between their public profiles, Mr Packham’s exorbitant costs, the unnecessary scale of the litigation, and the fact that they have been sued personally, the case is a “SLAPP” (a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation), which is intended to intimidate them into silence. Mr Packham has not responded to this point.  

Without support the defendants cannot afford to pay their own specialist defamation lawyers - a firm of solicitors and a barrister - to defend their journalism and take the case to trial, or protect themselves against Mr Packham’s costs.

Why does this case matter? 

Country Squire Editor Dominic Wightman said “Having to raise hundreds of thousands of pounds to have the light shone on the facts seems ridiculous but that is the reality we are facing because the Claimant, Packham, has sued us as individuals. Add to that personal cost the daily bombardment from Packham-supporting trolls and we have had to dig deep. We are strong. Bring on the main trial. The sooner the better.

“We cannot wait to get the facts out there. We now have a superb legal and research team in place and we have refused to buckle before demands that we should apologise and remove the articles. The support from the Countryside has been amazing both through Crowd Justice and direct to our lawyers. Thanks to all of you for giving us the chance to defend ourselves and our articles against Packham.”

The case focuses on the specific allegations about the tigers, the zoo, and the Muirburns. These might be considered obscure issues, of little interest to the wider countryside in the UK. But this is to miss the bigger point about Mr Packham’s high profile campaigning and fund-raising activities. If he wins this case, his activities and influence will continue unabated. If he loses, or even if his evidence is rejected in part, his credibility as an honest campaigner will be seriously diminished.

If you ride a horse (whether or not to hounds), farm livestock, show your livestock in agricultural shows, keep pigs or poultry, shoot in any capacity, go fly fishing, coarse or sea fishing, are dependent upon the wider rural community for your business or recreation, if you build drystone walls or lay hedgerows or plant trees, in fact if you undertake just about any form of management of the countryside, then this case is not just about tigers. It is about you too.

The defendants are confident of winning this case on the basis of truth.

But they need your generous help.

June 2022

Further Information

For those wishing to plunge into legal detail:

For those wishing to read the original articles in CSM:


For an excellent and rapid review of the story, containing almost exactly the same information as the early CSM articles, The Daily Mail article is here: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9069615/Did-Chris-Packhams-claims-tiger-cruelty-people-thousands.html


Update 3

Supporters of the Packham 3

May 10, 2022

A Supporter of the Fundraiser Speaks Out

A backer of the fundraiser speaks out on why he thinks people should dig deep and support The Packham 3. We thank them for their support.

https://www.countrysidefightback.online/news-related-to-the-countryside-fightback/



Update 2

Supporters of the Packham 3

April 27, 2022

An Update on where we are

The Amended Defence for the 3 defendants was filed at the court on Monday 25th April. This is a huge step forward in the case. The opponents now have until 13 May 2022 to file and serve a Reply to the Amended Defence. We will update when we hear more news. 

Thank you so much for your continued support and please keep sharing this. and help us achieve our target.



Update 1

Supporters of the Packham 3

April 8, 2022

Fantastic news

Dear All, We received a brief update today. The draft defences for the Packham 3 have been sent to Mr Packham's lawyers today. The costs for these will mostly be covered by the funds raised so far - £20,000 - 30,000 in total. So, thanks to all supporters for this impressive achievement, with the Crowd Justice having passed its first £20,000 target yesterday. This was 10 days ahead of schedule. The independent fundraising team is delighted but hardly complacent. Monies raised so far are just 1/25 of the target. There are many more hurdles ahead. But it's a great start and THANKYOU so much to all involved - the various teams working on a purely voluntary basis behind the scenes and to the public. One of the Packham 3 commented," meeting this deadline seemed unlikely a few weeks back. The fundraisers and contributors are stars and we thank them so much for their efforts so far. Very kind. We're now in the fight. We are trying our very best and we will continue to update you as we receive further news. If we could we'd buy you all a beer!"

    There are no public comments on this case page.