Neil Wilby Media

A 53 year old Liverpudlian, whom self-styles as a ‘social media influencer’ is, he says, set to issue legal proceedings against Lancashire Constabulary (Lancs) over a procedural flaw connected to his most recent interaction with that police force.

After being detained at Preston police station on 23rd March, 2023, following an arrest at his home in Ormskirk by officers from Greater Manchester Police (GMP), Paul Ponting, who doubles up as a computer repairer from premises in his home town, was released on conditional bail with a return date three months later. He denies any wrongdoing.

A Lancs spokesperson, in response to a press enquiry, confirmed that the offences of which he was suspected are stalking, harassment and common assault. They added that ‘Enquiries are ongoing’ (read more here).

At the time, and after his release from police detention, he provided a running commentary of the arrest, the conduct of a search of his premises and his, mostly disparaging, views of the officers involved.

Ponting, a man whom at least one circuit judge has found is too often a stranger to the truth, also falsely claimed on social media, during that commentary, that he had been released under investigation (RUI), not bailed. The difference being that, with RUI, no conditions can be attached.

On 15th June, 2023, on at least one of his social media accounts, he published a photograph of part of a police bail form that was not signed by the custody sergeant (or any other officer). That, he says, renders the bail conditions imposed on him unlawful and a cause of action against the police, whom it must be noted are old adversaries in the civil courts.

“#PoliceBail conditions MUST be authorised by a Custody Sgt. @lancspolicefailed to sign, making the bail conditions unlawful 🤡 #SeeYouInCourt”

Apart from the addition of the ‘See you in court‘ threat (hash-tagged for emphasis), this was a near repeat of a post that Paul Ponting made on Twitter on 23rd May, 2023

“Bail conditions by @LancsPolice are being challenged as being null and void as they have not been signed by the custody sergeant when it says they must be authorised”. 

But the first question his own lawyer, Iain Gould of DPP Law in Liverpool, will likely address is: What is the minimum amount of loss and damage necessary before a claim of this nature is actionable? The burden of proof, of course, falling on his client. Particularly, as there is clear evidence that those same bail conditions were breached on several occasions, at least, and a police spokesperson has confirmed that his client’s bail has been extended for a further three months, until September, 2023.

The same question was posed in Ambrosaidou v Coward [2011] EWCA Civ 409, where Lord Neuberger observed: “…. is it more than fanciful to suppose either that actual loss has been suffered or that distress has been suffered above a de minimis level.”

More generally, whilst breaching police bail conditions is not, of itself, a criminal offence, a breach may amount to a separate offence, such as witness intimidation, in which case the police may choose to arrest for breach and investigate any new suspected offence.

If DPP Law do decide to issue proceedings against Lancs over the unsigned bail form, buoyed, perhaps, by a previous success in 2018 against the same force, acting for the same client, when a claim for false imprisonment, assault and battery occasioning physical and psychological injury and malicious prosecution was compromised in their client’s favour – with a without liability payment of £35,000 paid by the police and an apology given – they would also have to take account of the fact that, since 6th April, 2023, Paul Ponting has been restrained by an interim injunction from contacting the complainant in the current police investigations involving him.

The Order of HHJ Nigel Bird, handed down in Manchester County Court, is a publicly accessible document. It will not make pretty reading for the highly respected Mr Gould, one of the leading ‘actions against the police’ lawyers in the country.

That recent injunction is the second one known to be currently in force against Paul Ponting (a third injunction application is known to be contemplated).

In March, 2020, in Liverpool County Court, HHJ David Knifton QC handed down an until further order (permanent) injunction following the five day, final hearing of an application brought by the Chief Constable of Lancashire Constabulary under the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act, 2014 in September, 2019. A detailed report of the ex-tempore judgment can be read here. It is a shocking litany of unequivocal court findings against Ponting, by a circuit judge, that include harassment; data breaches (including ‘a gross violation’); ‘flagrant dishonesty’; some of his website posts were grossly unfair, inaccurate, distorted and with no basis in fact; making ‘outrageous slurs’ on the character and integrity of police officers; bullying; anti-social, abusive, aggressive, confrontational and intimidating behaviour and selfishness.

The latter, whilst on the face of it much less serious than the rest, actually involved an incident where Ponting called 999 a very short time after the Manchester Arena bombing atrocity in May, 2017 and insisted, accompanied by what the judge described as harassing threats and intimidation, that a non-emergency incident was dealt with, over a number of minutes by the 999 operator, rather than, as suggested, calling back on 101 when there was less demand on the service. In reply, he said he ‘didn’t give a flying shit’ about life or death emergencies involving others. Or, it seems, a terror attack in which 22 people died.

Some of the reprehensible conduct articulated at length in the Lancs injunction proceedings has been repeated recently: On the usually ‘anything goes’ Twitter platform, the social media giant found, in two separate written reports dated 30th May, 2021, that three of his tweets were in breach of their privacy policy and a further three violated their rules on abuse. Twitter said, when disclosing those findings, that Paul Ponting faces suspension from their platform if there are further violations.

The reader(s) of this article may wish to reflect on the motive, purpose and level of seriousness of the purported legal challenge by Paul Ponting to an unsigned bail conditions document, set in the wider context of the grim findings of those two senior judges and his recent and, indeed, current behaviour on social media.

They may also wish to muse over how such action would be funded if the Ponting claim is unsuccessful. Particularly, in the light of this recent article, published elsewhere on Neil Wilby Media, which takes a closer look at his company’s concerning financial position (read in full here).

DPP Law have been contacted for comment. If his lawyers do not provide a statement on his behalf, Paul Ponting is invited to exercise his right of reply via the Neil Wilby Media contact form here.

UPDATE: DPP Law did acknowledge the email but said they were unable to comment further. ‘The Ormskirk Vigilante’, as Ponting is widely known elsewhere (read in detail here), made his views known beneath a link to the article on Twitter in a five word post:

‘Wilby is a wanker troll’.

Follow Neil Wilby on Twitter (here) and Neil Wilby Media on Facebook (here) for signposts to any updates.

Page last updated: Thursday 29th June, 2023 at 17h55

Thank you for reading and a polite request: If you feel this article is of value and in the public interest, and wish to make a contribution to the running costs of this website, it would be very much appreciated. Donations can made securely (and anonymously if required), via Buy Me A Coffee at this link or via PayPal at this link.

Corrections: Please let me know if there is a mistake in this article. I will endeavour to correct it as soon as possible.

Picture credit: Twitter

Right of reply: If you are mentioned in this article and disagree with it, please let me have your comments via this link. Provided your response is not defamatory it will be added to the article.

© Neil Wilby 2015-2023. Unauthorised use, or reproduction, of the material contained in this article, without permission from the author, is strictly prohibited. Extracts from, and links to, the article (or blog) may be used, provided that credit is given to Neil Wilby Media, with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.