Police May Have Defamed Journalist Allison Pearson, Judge Rules

Police "may have defamed" a writer in a row over an X post, a High Court judge has ruled.

Statements made by Essex Police said to be about Daily Telegraph journalist Allison Pearson could be defamatory, Mr Justice Chamberlain found.

Constables visited Pearson in November 2024 after it was alleged she had incited racial hatred in a post on X, but the investigation was later dropped.

She said she was left "dumbstruck" by the incident, which led the force to publish a series of press releases online with its version of events.

The judge found two of those statements, as well as later comments by the county's police, fire and crime commissioner, Roger Hirst, about the investigation, may have defamed Pearson.

The journalist brought the legal action against the force and Hirst over statements she alleged related to a now-deleted post on X.

She said it led officers to investigate her for a potential offence of inciting racial hatred, knock on her door on Remembrance Sunday in 2024 and invite her to be interviewed under caution.

The incident was widely reported by news outlets, some of whom criticised the practice of investigating and recording non-crime hate incidents.

In response, Essex Police published a statement that said officers visited "an address in Essex and invited a woman to come to a voluntary interview".

Conservative politician Hirst also published an article on the Conservative Home website and was interviewed on radio station LBC about the issue.

Pearson said the police statement and Hirst's comments were all defamatory, while the opposing parties have been defending the claims.

At a High Court hearing in March, Mr Justice Chamberlain was asked to consider the "natural and ordinary meaning" of the statements.

He said in a preliminary judgment on Friday that part of the Essex Police statement could be defamatory because it may have implied guilt on Pearson's behalf.

In it, the force said officers went to a house to arrange an interview after "a complaint of a possible criminal offence".

Lorna Skinner, for Pearson, said they would have seen the post online prior to their visit and concluded there were grounds to suspect the columnist had committed a crime.

She argued that by requesting Pearson attend an interview, police inquiries had progressed beyond being preliminary.

The judge said questions of whether the statements, which did not name Ms Pearson, would have been understood as referring to her would also have to be decided at trial.

The judge also found Hirst's LBC interview could be defamatory.

Although Hirst refused to comment on Ms Pearson's case specifically, he said: "We can't go around ignoring crimes just because it's politically sensitive.

"We perhaps need to just think about how our black and Asian communities are hearing this debate."

In his judgment, the judge said: "Mr Hirst's words did bear the meaning 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."

Hirst's article on the Conservative Home website was also found to have the same meaning.