Claims that Chris Packham fraudulently solicited donations for a charity that rescued tigers are among an “enormous amount of puerile, offensive and damaging material” published about him, the high court has heard.
The prominent naturalist has alleged that Dominic Wightman, the editor of the online site Country Squire Magazine, as well as the writer Nigel Bean and a third man, Paul Read, libelled him in nine articles that referred to his involvement with the Wildheart Trust, which runs a wildlife sanctuary on the Isle of Wight.
On Tuesday, the court heard that they had described Packham as a fraud, a “notorious liar”, as having an “obvious nastiness”, and accused him of playing the “Asperger’s victim card”.
The claim centres on allegations that Packham said they made that he had defrauded people into donating to the charity by claiming the tigers had been rescued from a circus despite allegedly knowing they had been well looked after – described in court as “tiger fraud”.
“It is now a facility that rescues animals in need of a forever home, as they put it, because for whatever reason they are unwanted by their former owners. A central allegation in this case is that it is fraudulent to attach the word ‘rescue’ to this process,” Packham’s lawyer Jonathan Price told the court.
In written submissions, he said: “Mr Packham is well known for his decades of vociferous campaigning for, and strongly held beliefs on, animal welfare and nature conservation issues. An argument that he does not genuinely hold those beliefs but has instead sought to defraud the public for money is, at best, an ambitious one.”
Packham has said the allegations against him, which he denies, were repeated in several tweets and videos.
At the start of the trial on Tuesday, the court heard that the environmentalist was accused of “abusing his privileged position as a BBC presenter” to dishonestly appeal for the donations.
Price argued that the three men intended to run “a full-frontal attack” on Packham’s character during the legal case and try to get him fired.
“As the litigation has progressed, the defendants have published an enormous amount of puerile, offensive and damaging material about the claimant, often under the guise of fundraising for their defence,” the barrister said in written submissions.
Nicholas O’Brien, for Wightman and Bean, said the articles in the claim were true and could also be defended as under the public interest. In written submissions, the barrister said: “It is clear that the tigers had not been rescued from a circus, were not then in need of rescue, and were not rescued by Mr Packham.”
O’Brien said the pair “contend that Packham knew the statements were false, and they were therefore made dishonestly”. He said: “They were also fraudulent in that they were made with a view to a gain and constituted an abuse of his privileged position as a BBC presenter.”
David Price KC said his client Read, a retired computer programmer, was not responsible for the publications attributed to him as he was a “mere proofreader”.
In written submissions, he added: “Mr Read’s proofread version was then subjected to further amendment by Mr Wightman and/or Mr Bean before publication.”
Price said Wightman had admitted responsibility. “The fact that Mr Read was given courtesy byline credits … cannot override the hard evidence as to his limited involvement,” he said.
The trial before Mr Justice Saini is due to conclude on 12 May, and a decision is expected at a later date.
