Forum 5
The Forum
Parkway
Whiteley
Fareham
Mr Robert Jessel
By email only to:- rob_jessel@yahoo.co.uk [my old email address]
[Name, address and contacts of the lawyer redacted]
Your Ref Delivered: By E-mail only. Our Ref M-00893734
Date 9 July2020
LETTER BEFORE CLAIM – NOT FOR PUBLICATION
Dear Sirs
OUR CLIENT: BRUERN ABBEY (“THE FIRST CLAIMANT”) AND MR STERLING STOVER (“THE SECOND CLAIMANT”)
MATTER: DEFAMATORY ALLEGATIONS MADE ON 27 JUNE 2020
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1. We act for the First and Second Claimant. We are writing in relation to your social media post timed at 1.16pm and dated 27 June 2020 (“the Social Media Article”). A print-out of the Social Media Article is enclosed at Annex 1.
1.2. This letter is sent in accordance with the Pre-action Protocol for Media and Communications Claims (Pre-action Protocol). Please provide your response to this letter within 14 days, ensuring that it complies with paragraphs 3.6 and 3.7 of the Pre-Action Protocol. If you fail adequately to respond to this letter within 14 days, our client may choose to issue proceedings against you without further notice.
2. THE SOCIAL MEDIA ARTICLE
2.1. The Social Media Article referred to our above-named clients each by name. While our clients will rely on the Social Media Article (and associated posts) as a whole, our client's complaint relates in particular to the following sections of the Social Media Article:
“Oh, and the final thing: my groomer and rapist was the headmaster / owner of my primary school. He is still there. His name is Jerry Sterling Stover, owner of Bruen Abbey School. @BruernAbbey
He still lives on the premises”
2.2. The Social Media Article alleges that the Second Claimant was a “groomer and rapist” and inter alia that criminal acts were conducted on the premises of the First Claimant and/or that the First Claimant is associated with the purported acts (“the Allegations”).
2.3. The Allegations are false and have been independently verified as false by the Safeguarding Team at Oxfordshire Country Council. These allegations have been made previously by you and fully investigated by:-
2.3.1.The Local Authority Designated Officer and Safeguarding Team at Oxfordshire County Council; and
2.3.2.Thames Valley Police.
2.4. Section 2 of the Defamation Act 2013 affords a limited defence to defamatory statements where a defendant can show the statement is substantially true. The Local Authority Designated Officer and Safeguarding Team at Oxfordshire County Council have concluded that the Allegations are not true. As such any such defence cannot succeed. Indeed, having reviewed the evidence Oxfordshire County Council confirmed that “that the member of staff at the centre of the allegations was innocent” and Thames Valley Police also confirmed no action would be taken.
2.5. The publication of the Social Media Article has caused and/or is likely to cause our client serious harm.
3. CHRONOLOGY
3.1. The Allegations are not the first incident. On 17 March 2014 you contacted the First Claimant, seeking to discuss your allegations. Mr. Barry Armstrong, LADO for Oxfordshire County Council responded to you indicating that the matter had been Fully and thoroughly investigated and that the investigation concluded that the member of staff at the centre of the allegations was innocent.
3.2. On 1 July 2015 you contacted the First Claimant saying you would come to the end of term celebrations unless the headteacher of the First Claimant had a meeting with you.
3.3. Between December 2016 and January 2017, you contacted the First Claimant asking if details of allegations had been provided to Operation Hydrant and requesting a meeting to discuss the allegations. Subsequent allegations were made to the headteacher of the First Claimant of being ‘in on it’. The First Claimant replied that the allegations had been investigated, referring to Barry Armstrong’s initial email confirming that Oxfordshire County Council confirmed the Allegations were not true.
3.4. Within this period you again contacted employees at the First Claimant seeking to procure a meeting with the headteacher of the First Claimant and rejecting a meeting with the Group Safeguarding Lead of Oxfordshire County Council who had confirmed the Allegations were false. A meeting was agreed, which the headteacher of the First Claimant had to postpone and in subsequent email you accused the headteacher of the First Claimant of being a ‘paedophile protector’.
3.5. The headteacher of the First Claimant was thereafter advised not to meet with you. On 13 December 2018 without authorisation you attended the site of the First Claimant concurrently with a carol concert event and approached parents to broadcast the substance of the Allegations. The headteacher of the First Claimant in the presence of the Deputy Head
informed you that your presence at the school was unwanted.
3.6. On 9 January 2020 a employee of the First Claimant was threatened with violence when you attended the site of the school operated by the First Claimant without authorisation. An incident occurred where you accused an employee of having you investigated by “K2”. When the employee confirmed this was not the case you responded noting "[y]es you have, don't lie to me, I will give you a slap if you lie to me again, I will punch you in the face. You are a Paedophile." At the conclusion of the altercation you stated words to the effect of:-
"As you now know I've only got one more year to live. Of course you know that now. This isn't about Stover any more, this is about you. I'm going to end you, I'm going to ruin your life, I'm going to ruin your career and end this school. And that's all I have come to say. I am leaving now."
3.7. A report was made to Thames Valley Police.
4. HARASSMENT AND TRESPASS
4.1. We note that a number of incidents have occurred at the First Claimant’s premises including those noted above where members of staff have been threatened with violence. These incidents have been incredibly distressing to both staff, pupils and the parents of pupils. The conduct is unwanted, threatening and is harassing both employees of the First Claimant and parents of children attending the school.
4.2. Our client takes the harassment very seriously. Should you attend the premises operated by the First Claimant again, harass its employees or otherwise contact our clients save in relation to these proceedings, our clients reserve their position to seek an injunction pursuant to and/or take further action pursuant to section 3A of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.
5. OTHER MATTERS AND NEXT STEPS
5.1. The Social Media Article is highly defamatory of our clients. Our client therefore requires that you:
5.1.1.Preserve any information relating to the readership of the Social Media Article, as well as the appearance and impressions associated with any social media posts referring to the Social Media Article within your control (Social Media Posts) and provide us with that information.
5.1.2.procure that any Social Media Posts are deleted by no later than 4pm on 13 July 2020
5.1.3.Undertake not to publish the Social Media Article or Social Media Posts again, or otherwise to re-publish the Allegations; and
5.1.4.Publish, with equivalent prominence to the Social Media Article, a suitable apology in terms to be agreed.
Our client reserves it position to seek compensation for the damage to their reputation, distress and financial loss caused and/or its legal costs (to be assessed if not agreed).
5.2. It is noted that the Allegations have been republished by a number of third parties in the form of “retweeting”. Those third parties are now liable for the Allegations as published by them. In
the event that you do not comply with the above requests, including the deletion of the Social Media Article and/or Social Media Posts, our client:-
5.2.1.will be forced to proceed legally against each of the individuals who have published the Allegations through the “retweet” function of the Twitter platform to procure the removal of the Allegations and seek damages from each of them; and
5.2.2.may choose to issue proceedings against you without further notice.
5.3. Those proceedings will be issued in England, which in the light of the location of both the offending acts and the location of our above-named clients, is the most appropriate forum for the dispute to be heard.
5.4. We look forward to receiving your response by return, and in any case by 23 July 2020. .
Yours faithfully
SHOOSMITHS LLP
Back in 2020 I had a little bit of a Twitter following and wrote a well-received thread about grooming. The last tweet in the thread named Sterling Stover. A few days later, this letter arrived.
Obviously, it was frightening. But then I calmed down; I know lawyers’ letters are supposed to be scary. So I ignored all of Shoosmiths’ demands…except to take down the last tweet. Then I sat back and waited…and waited.
Nothing happened. And that experience (along with the support of the wonderful E.) was perhaps the genesis of this website.
About a year later, following the re-publication of my accusations on my personal website, the school attempted to silence me again. This time the letter came not from the UK’s pre-eminent libel lawyers, but from some two-bit, provincial law firm. (Sorry, I know this sounds dismissive. There’s nothing wrong with being provincial. Hell, I’m provincial. But it’s quite a way from Shoosmiths to VWV, whoever they be.) I passed it on to my barrister (who acts for me for free) and his advice was, effectively, “Don’t worry.”
So I didn’t. That letter is included below, too - and my response.
(Oh, here’s the original Twitter thread, captured for posterity: https://twtext.com/article/1276851791225933824)
Private & Confidential
Mr Robert Jessel
By email only: robjessel@gmail.com
Dear Sir
Our ref: rml/bjh/102506/0002 Doc no: 23612760v1
7 June 2021
Our client: Chesterton Education Limited t/a Bruern Abbey School (the "School")
We act for the School and write with regards to the allegations you have made on social media and other online platforms relating to the School and the former headmaster, Mr Sterling Stover.
As you know, on 9 July 2020, Shoosmiths wrote to you with regards to defamatory allegations made on 27 June 2020 on social media. You were asked to delete the post in question and any associated posts, and to undertake not to publish the post or associated posts, or to re-publish such allegations again.
Unfortunately, it has recently come to the School's attention that the contents of the social media post detailed in Shoosmiths' letter of 9 July can still be found at the following web page:
https://threader.app/thread/1276851791225933824
Further, the School is also extremely concerned to note the contents of the following blog post: https://www.robjessel.co.uk/bruernabbey (the "New Post")
(together the "Posts").
In both of the posts, you make unfounded allegations of purported child sexual abuse by the former headmaster of the School. In the New Post you make significant further allegations including claiming that you were "lied to by the school's senior management and safeguarding leads, including the current headmaster".
We understand that the substance of your allegations have been fully investigated by both the police and local safeguarding board. These investigations considered the available evidence and the circumstances of the case. The police confirmed that no further action would be taken.
Despite previous warnings, you have continued to make serious and harmful allegations without any evidence in support of these claims. The School requires you to:
1. remove the Posts and any associated online posts and/or comments (whether referencing the Posts or containing the same or similar content) including but not limited to anything on Twitter, Wikipedia, Threader, your personal website or any other platforms, within the next 7 days (i.e. by 14 June 2021); and
2. refrain from publishing or re-publishing anything of the same or similar nature at any point in the future.
By failing to do so, you will be increasing your exposure in relation to claims for, amongst other things, defamation and/or harassment.
Your actions in making these public allegations are clearly likely to cause serious harm to our client and the School reserves all of its rights, including to pursue legal proceedings against you, in this matter.
We await your confirmation by email to rlewis@vwv.co.uk by 14 June 2021 that you have taken the actions above.
Yours faithfully
And here’s the second letter
Dear [redacted],
Following my earlier email, and subsequent to obtaining preliminary advice, please find below my formal response to the demands from your client Chesterton Education Ltd (the “School”).
I note that the School takes issue with the article posted on my website and with the Thread Reader App record of my now-deleted Tweet.
As discussed in my earlier communication, I am not responsible for the posts of this Twitter account; nor did I request Thread Reader App archive my tweet, nor do I have any power to delete it. I suggest that either you or the School take this up with the account directly. You may be aware that in any event Thread Reader Apps typically render a “rolled up” thread inaccessible after a period of approximately 2-3 months.
Regarding the blog on my website (the “Post”), I dispute the School’s claim that this is in any way defamatory. As you are of course aware, truth is a complete defence to defamation claims. Far from being “allegations without any evidence”, these allegations, in conjunction with my contemporaneous letter to the school, my evidence to the IICSA and my complaints to Thames Valley Police, are all, in themselves, primary and supporting evidence.
For the avoidance of doubt I am, if necessary, prepared to give evidence as to the abuse I suffered and the School’s subsequent safeguarding failures in open court. Further, victims of rape and serious sexual abuse are entitled to reasonably and directly raise safeguarding concerns without risk of civil liability for harassment.
I have on many occasions and at all times been open to working with the School and its governors to discuss my safeguarding concerns. These offers have been consistently rebuffed, leaving me no option but to take direct actions such as those described in the Post on my website in order to protect children and young people at the school. This offer, by the way, still stands.
As a victim of serious sexual offences perpetrated at the School, I am surprised and saddened that the School is considering litigation, rather than engaging with my genuine and serious concerns.
Yours etc.,
Robert Jessel
My response…