Pevensey man who livestreamed accusations that Scottish brothers were gangsters found in contempt of Court of Session interdict

About this case:

• Citation:
  [2024] CSOH 17
• Judgment:
  External link
• Court:
  Court of Session Outer House
• Judge:
  Lord Braid

The respondent, Paul Hendry, had attempted to argue that he was not defaming petitioners James and Alexander Easdale from within Scotland and the terms of the interdict were not sufficiently clear. While he had initially complied with the order, he later began YouTube broadcasts he stated were to “make sure the truth was out there”.

The petition was heard by Lord Braid. E Campbell, advocate, appeared for the petitioners while the respondent appeared as a party litigant.

Intended to continue

In March 2023 the respondent published videos on YouTube and Twitter under the handle “Pevensey Paul”, accessible within Scotland, in which he alleged that the petitioners were “gangsters” and involved in organised crime. On 5 May 2023, he was interdicted by the Court of Session from defaming the petitioners by “making, publishing or otherwise disseminating, within Scotland”, statements alleging that either or both of the petitioners was involved with serious or organised crime. Additionally, decree was granted for the payment of damages to each of the petitioners.

Although the respondent initially observed the terms of the interdict, from 24 November 2023 until 8 December 2023 he repeatedly broadcast live on YouTube and again suggested the petitioners were involved in organised crime in the Greenock area. After complaints by the petitioners’ agents, YouTube disabled access to those videos from within the UK, but the respondent encouraged users to use a VPN service to avoid that restriction and made it clear he intended to continue broadcasting.

In his submissions, the respondent said he believed the provisions of the interdict were not enforceable within England, noting that the money provisions of the decree were registered for enforcement in England and Wales. He did not think he was publishing in Scotland but rather within England, from where his broadcasts went to the USA, from where they went all over the world without his control.

Wilful defiance

Lord Braid, addressing jurisdiction, noted: “As it is, the interdict correctly applies only to Scotland. There would be nothing to prevent Mr Hendry from going to a public park in Pevensey and pontificating to the populace there about the Easdales (although if he did so, an injunction might swiftly follow, along with a further damages action). But what he cannot do, by virtue of the interdict, is to publish or disseminate material which makes its way to this jurisdiction, wherever in the world he happens to be.”

He continued: “Even assuming Mr Hendry’s description of how YouTube videos technically come to be published around the world to be accurate, that is irrelevant: the route by which material on the internet, originating in England, comes to be published in Scotland is neither here nor there. To adapt a hypothetical example put to Mr Hendry in cross-examination, had he mailed, in New Zealand, an article defamatory of the petitioners for publication in the Scotsman, it would have mattered not whether, en route, the aeroplane carrying it had landed in other jurisdictions before arriving in Scotland.”

On the enforceability of the interdict in England, Lord Braid said: “The difference between the order for payment of £400,000 and the interdict, of course, is that the former did require to be enforced in England, whereas the latter simply prohibited Mr Hendry from doing certain acts in Scotland and as such, it did not have to be enforced in England at all: it simply had to be observed. In the event, I am unclear as to what Mr Hendry thought he was waiting for, before he intended to observe the interdict; but since I do not believe that the absence of registration played any part in his thinking it is of no moment.”

He concluded: “I find that Mr Hendry’s conduct denotes wilful defiance of, or disrespect towards, the court; and as such I find him to be in contempt - indeed, an egregious contempt, given the blatant and repeated repetition of the interdicted conduct.”

A hearing was therefore fixed to allow the respondent an opportunity to address the court on what disposal would be appropriate.