By registering with us, you'll be able to discuss, share and private message with other members of our community.

SignUp Now!

Suing Liars.

Roy catchpole

Senior Patron
Oct 31, 2018
Reaction score
This is in some ways 'old news', but in terms of its significance for those of you seeking ways of confronting liars (both accusers and departments and organs of the state), this case is instructive (2002).

The home secretary, David Blunkett, agreed to pay compensation to Dawn Reed and Christopher Lillie, the former nursery nurses who won a libel case after being falsely accused of child abuse.
Mr Blunkett exonerated the pair of criminal charges based on facts arising from a case in the civil courts. Lawyers have also pointed out that the decision to accept the pair's claim has been reached, for the Home Office, with exceptional speed.
Ms Reed, 31, and Mr Lillie, 38, were originally charged with child abuse at Shieldfield nursery in central Newcastle in 1993, but were acquitted the following year after the crown offered no evidence against them. (Just as in my case)! It really does happen - even after three trials.
Tony Flynn, then the acting leader of Newcastle city council, repudiated the verdict, and the council set up an inquiry. The report, published in November 1998, found Ms Reed and Mr Lillie guilty of serious sexual and physical abuse of children in their care. (So determined were the council that these innocent people were guilty).

The pair then brought an action for defamation against the council and the four authors of the report, Richard Barker, Judith Jones and Roy Wardell, who had backgrounds in social work, and Jacqui Saradjian, a clinical psychologist. !

At the end of the six-month libel trial in July, Mr Justice Eady found that the report was "malicious" and that the authors had made "a number of fundamental claims which they must have known to be untrue."
The judge concluded that "[Reed and Lillie] are entitled to be vindicated and recognised as innocent citizens who should be untouched by the stigma of child abuse." He awarded them each £200,000 in damages, the maximum possible, saying that "In view of what they have been through since November 1998, it is hardly excessive by anyone's standards." Ms Reed and Mr Lillie will now be compensated through the Home Office ex gratia scheme for the distress and suffering caused by the unfounded allegations from 1993-98. The payment is for wrongful imprisonment - Mr Lillie was in jail for 10 months and Ms Reed for 14 weeks - and for being wrongfully charged.


Staff member
Oct 29, 2018
Reaction score
Watch this space


for an input from pub member - @jonnyfox

he has sued and won cases of defamation against female accusers...