Statements by Essex Police and comments by county's Police, Fire and Crime Commissioner could be defamatory, High Court rules

In November 2024, Ms Pearson was visited at home by officers from Essex Police who told her they were investigating a complaint about a social media post she had made one year ago.

The journalist had quote-tweeted a post originally published by another account. The post contained a video of two male supporters of the political party Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf, escorted by police officers and included the caption “The Police have certainly picked a side. Disgraceful”.

In her quote-tweet, Ms Pearson added the comment: “How dare they. @metpoliceuk Invited to pose for a photo with lovely peaceful British Friends of Israel on Saturday police refused.

Look at this lot smiling with the Jew haters. @toadmeister”.

A few weeks later, she deleted the post.

Ms Pearson published a column in The Daily Telegraph in which she described the visit by the police officers. She said she had been informed by the officers that she had been accused of a “non-crime hate incident”.

She accused the police of “two-tier policing” and criticised them for not investigating more serious incidents such as shoplifting, burglaries, stabbings and violent crime.

This led to the force publishing a series of press releases online with its version of events.

Following this, the journalist brought libel claims against the Chief Constable of Essex Police and Roger Hirst, the Police, Fire and Crime Commissioner for Essex.

The claim against the Chief Constable was founded on versions of a press statement published on the Essex Police website on 13, 16 and 21 November 2024.

The claim against the Police, Fire and Crime Commissioner was founded on words spoken in a radio programme first broadcast on 17 November 2024 and an article first published on the Conservative Home website and on the website of the Police, Fire and Crime Commissioner for Essex on 18 November 2024.

In Pearson v Essex Police [2026] EWHC 961 (KB), Mr Justice Chamberlain considered in a preliminary issues hearing the "natural and ordinary meaning" of the statements.
Mr Justice Chamberlin made the following conclusions:

“a) The press statements by Essex Police dated 13 and 16 November 2024 meant that that there were grounds to investigate a woman at an address in Essex for an alleged offence of inciting racial hatred, linked to a post on social media. At common law, these statements were defamatory of the woman referred to at Chase Level 3.

“b) The press statement dated 21 November 2024 meant that there had been grounds to investigate a woman at an address in Essex for an alleged offence of inciting racial hatred, linked to a post on social media, but, in the light of the investigation, there was no basis for further action. At common law this was not defamatory of the woman referred to.

“c) Each of the iterations of the press statement also meant that the woman had provided an account of her interaction with the police which was false. It is not possible to determine at this stage and in the abstract whether the second meaning is defamatory at common law. That will have to be determined at trial.

“d) The words spoken by Mr Hirst in his interview with LBC on 17 November 2024 meant that, in the light of the complaint and the post itself, there were reasonable grounds to investigate Ms Pearson for the offence of inciting racial hatred. At common law, this was defamatory of Ms Pearson at Chase Level 3.

“e) Mr Hirst’s article in Conservative Home on 18 November 2024 meant that there were grounds to investigate whether Ms Pearson had committed a hate speech offence. At common law, this was defamatory of Ms Pearson at Chase Level 3.”

Chase Levels 1, 2 and 3 in defamation cases refer to the three points levels of defamatory meanings that were identified by the court.

At Chase Level 1, the claimant is seen as being guilty or liable for the alleged act. This is the most severe level, as the claimant is viewed as having committed the act with certainty.

At Chase Level 2, there is reasonable ground to suspect that the claimant has committed the act. At Chase Level 3, there is probable cause to investigate the claimant's guilt.

A spokesperson for Essex Police said: “It would be inappropriate to comment while legal proceedings remain active.”

Pippa Brent-Isherwood, Chief Executive and Monitoring Officer for the Police, Fire and Crime Commissioner for Essex, said: “The court has ruled on the meaning of the comments. As the case is ongoing, it would not be appropriate to comment further at this stage.”

The case will now go to trial at a date to be determined unless it is settled out of court.