Laurence Fox ‘paedophile' posts would not have been taken seriously, appeal told

Yahoo

14 hours ago

Social media posts by Laurence Fox referring to two people as paedophiles likely would not have been taken 'seriously' by many people, the Court of Appeal has heard. The actor-turned-activist was successfully sued by now-Stonewall CEO Simon Blake and drag artist Crystal over a row on Twitter, now known as X.
Mr Fox called Mr Blake and the former RuPaul's Drag Race contestant, whose real name is Colin Seymour, 'paedophiles' in an exchange about a decision by Sainsbury's to mark Black History Month in October 2020.
Mr Fox called for a boycott of the supermarket and was called 'a racist' by the pair, as well as broadcaster Nicola Thorp, before he responded with the 'paedophile' tweets which led to the libel claims.
In two judgments in 2024, Mrs Justice Collins Rice ruled in favour of Mr Blake and Mr Seymour and said Mr Fox should pay the pair £90,000 each in damages.
The judge dismissed Mr Fox's counter claims against the pair and Ms Thorp over tweets accusing him of racism.
The 47-year-old is now challenging the rulings at the Court of Appeal in London, attending the first day of the hearing on Monday.
Patrick Green KC, for Mr Fox, said in written submissions that the judgment which found Mr Fox had libelled the pair should be quashed due to 'errors of approach' by the judge, including over whether Mr Blake and Mr Seymour were caused serious harm.
Mr Green said: 'Her conclusions were in any event, plainly wrong, on any fair consideration of the evidence.'
The barrister added that Mrs Justice Collins Rice had wrongly decided damages for the two men, who, along with Ms Thorp, are opposing the appeal.
Mr Green said that the decision on damages did not consider the actual words Mr Fox used 'and the likelihood that many or the vast majority of readers would have not have taken them seriously, particularly in their context'.
The barrister said that in one of her rulings, the judge 'ignores the actual words used, or their all important context'.
He also said the judge 'failed to account adequately or at all' for an apology Mr Fox made, or alleged misconduct by Mr Blake and Mr Seymour in 'exaggerating' the harm and distress caused.
Mr Fox told the original trial in November 2023 that his use of the term was 'rhetorical', and 'there was no inference at any point that I thought they were a paedophile'.
'I was diminishing the ridiculousness of calling me a racist,' he said.
And on Monday, Mr Green said it was clear Mr Fox was being rhetorical.
The barrister told appeal judges: 'He's not saying 'I am a racist and they are paedophiles' and everyone understood it in that way.'
Adrienne Page KC, for Mr Blake, Mr Seymour and Ms Thorp, said in written submissions that Mr Fox's appeal was 'lacking in merit'.
She continued: 'The 'paedophile' tweets did not embody the appellant's opinions about Mr Blake and Mr Seymour.
'They conveyed factual imputations of the most serious defamatory character.'
The barrister added there was 'no meaningful retraction or apology' by Mr Fox.
She later said: 'Whichever way one looks at it, the judge was fully entitled to reach the factual conclusions that she did on the serious, real-world, reputational impact of the appellant's tweets, for the reasons which she gave.
'There was nothing wrong with her analysis in fact or law.'
Ms Page added that Mr Fox's case at trial had been 'largely devoted to hypothesising, as already noted, a series of different scenarios as to the various ways or settings in which his tweets may have appeared to different readers'.
'After very careful and conscientious evaluation, the judge was, unsurprisingly, not persuaded of this on the facts,' she continued.
Ms Page continued that the sums of £90,000 in damages awarded to the pair were 'unexceptionable'.
The hearing before Lord Justice Dingemans, Lady Justice Elisabeth Laing and Lord Justice Warby is expected to conclude on Tuesday.