Neil Wilby Media

A notorious 54 year old Liverpudlian, widely known as ‘The Ormskirk Vigilante‘ (read more here) lost yet another legal battle yesterday.

Paul Arthur Ponting is a former computer and hair curler repairer (read more here), whom, over the past seven years or so, has gained infamy as a prolific internet troll, persistent and frequently outrageous liar and on-line harasser, and near permanent spectre within police stations and court administration offices where warranted officers and staff deal with his multitude of civil and criminal skirmishes.

Up to very recently, he was involved with at least four private prosecutions against individuals against whom he has taken exception on a variety of pretexts, including a serving Lancashire Constabulary inspector.

Two of those were taken over by the Crown Prosecution and formally discontinued at a court hearing in Preston Magistrates’ Court on 9th April, 2024. One of those two men, against whom Ponting has laid two previous failed private prosecutions, is set to launch a civil claim for malicious prosecution against him. 

The private prosecution against the police officer, whom, in the view of the author of this article, Neil Wilby, it is not in the public interest to name, ended in the same court yesterday morning when a judge refused Ponting’s application to issue a summons against the inspector.

Reporting restrictions, which previously applied to hearings held in closed session, were lifted yesterday.

Throughout what were convoluted proceedings, Paul Ponting variously alleged, without any credible evidence or sound basis in law, a range of offences that appears, or appeared, to encompass perjury, misfeasance, malfeasance or misconduct in public office.

The private prosecution centred around a document signed by the inspector requesting a bail extension and submitted to the local magistrates’ court. ‘The Vigilante’ disagreed with its contents and elevated that into serious criminal allegations.

The court’s essential findings were: “These were simply representations, or submissions, made to the court in support of the application to extend bail.

“The application to institute proceedings for perjury under section 5 of the Perjury Act 1911 is refused. The evidence provided, even if accepted, does not engage any of the provisions in subsections a to c of the section.”

The inspector denied any wrongdoing and the attempt to prosecute the police officer, and Ponting’s actions since, were characterised as ‘vexatious’ in court and his propensity to waste court time in other locations in the North West was also noted. 

Earlier this month, Ponting lost two civil claims in the County Court at Manchester, one of which, as a consequence of his stalking, harassing behaviour resulted in a second until further Order (permanent) injunction being placed against his name following a grotesque, long-running campaign against two directors of a law firm based in the Greater Manchester area. 

Contempt of court proceedings are already in train against him, backed by a lengthy list of breaches of the Penal Order in the short time since it was sealed by the court.

In March, 2020, Lancashire Constabulary also obtained an until further Order (permanent) injunction against Paul Ponting in a civil action brought against him by way of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act, 2014 (read full judgment here). The Order places considerable restrictions on his contact with Lancs officers, either on-line or in person.

The force has been asked whether they, too, will be taking any further civil action against him over breach of that Order.

Following an operation involving two police forces, Lancs and Greater Manchester Police, Paul Ponting was arrested in March, 2023 over allegations of stalking, harassing and assault and has been restrained by conditional police bail (the same bail that was at the heart of the private prosecution), in one form or another, ever since (read more here). He denies all the allegations, the latter now being statute barred, in any event.

An explanation of a private prosecution (or ‘laying an information’)

A private prosecution in England and Wales refers to a legal process where an individual or organisation initiates criminal proceedings against another individual or entity. This is done through the courts and is different from a prosecution brought by a public prosecuting authority like the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) or the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP).

Here are some key points about private prosecutions in England and Wales:

1. Who can initiate a private prosecution: Any individual or organisation, including companies, can initiate a private prosecution, provided they have sufficient evidence to support the criminal charge.

2. Reasons for private prosecution: Private prosecutions may be pursued for various reasons, such as when the CPS or DPP declines to prosecute, when the victim or complainant is dissatisfied with the decision of the public prosecutor, or when the alleged offence is of a personal nature.

3. Process: The process of initiating a private prosecution involves gathering evidence, preparing the case, and filing the necessary documents with the court. A process formally known as ‘laying an information’. The proceedings then follow a similar course to public prosecutions, including pre-trial hearings, trial, and sentencing if a conviction is secured.

4. Costs: The individual or organisation initiating the private prosecution is responsible for the costs involved, including legal fees, court fees, and other expenses. However, in some cases, costs may be recoverable from the defendant if the prosecution is successful.

5. Legal representation: Private prosecutors typically engage legal professionals, such as solicitors and barristers, to handle the case on their behalf. Legal representation is crucial to navigate the complexities of criminal law and court procedures.

6. Outcome: If the court finds the defendant guilty, they may be subject to penalties, including fines, imprisonment, or other sanctions as prescribed by law.

It’s important to note that while private prosecutions offer individuals and organisations the opportunity to seek justice through the legal system, they also come with responsibilities and potential challenges. Legal advice and assistance are essential for anyone considering a private prosecution to ensure compliance with legal requirements and procedural fairness.

Paul Ponting was unrepresented in the private prosecutions referred to in this article.

He was offered the standard courtesy of right of reply on the date of publication, 30th April, 2024. This was his response, 17 days later:

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

Page last updated: Saturday 18th May, 2024 at 21h25

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: Facebook

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

© Neil Wilby 2015-2024. 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.