The Riley libel case is NOT over – I’m planning an appeal

If you were dismayed to read that a High Court judge has handed down a verdict in favour of Rachel Riley, in her libel case against me, don’t be.

You’ll recall that I was defending my article about her as publication on a matter of public interest. For that to succeed, I had to prove that it was indeed on such a matter, that I honestly believed it to be on such a matter, and that my belief was reasonable.

The judge agreed that the first two conditions were met, but said the last condition was not.

Her reasons for saying this are not, in my opinion, rational.

So I’m likely to file an appeal before the December 7 deadline, on a point of law – that she failed to meet the requirements of the Defamation Act 2013 in forming her conclusions.

I cannot do this without funding, though.

My defence has always been a group effort. I would not have been able to get as far as I did without your help and, without it, I will not be able to go any further.

I notice some of you have already donated more money into the CrowdJustice fund and I am grateful – all the more so because we all have so much less disposable cash now, thanks to the blunders of our political so-called leaders.

So, once again, I have to ask, please:

Make a donation via the CrowdJustice page. Keep donating regularly until you see the total pass the amount I need.

Email your friends, asking them to pledge to the CrowdJustice site.

Post a link to Facebook, asking readers to pledge.

On Twitter, tweet in support, quoting the address of the appeal.

Use other social media in the same way.

And don’t forget that if you’re having trouble, or simply don’t like donating via CrowdJustice, you can always donate direct to me via the Vox Political PayPal button, where it appears on that website. But please remember to include a message telling me it’s for the crowdfund!

To give you just one reason why it is vital to make it as hard as possible for people like Riley to win, I notice that she has mentioned on Twitter a settlement offer she made some time ago:


There are a few problems with this:

Firstly, the numbers expert from Channel 4’s Countdown has got her numbers wrong. The offer was £1,000 to a children’s charity and £5,000 to cover her own legal costs (not court fees as she states here). Court fees were not mentioned in her solicitor’s letter of January 5 this year.

Secondly, that letter laid great stress on the point that the offer was confidential. As Riley has referred to the offer, I see no problem with quoting from the letter: “We wish to make it clear that this offer is made on a confidential basis. If your client chooses to  breach  that  confidence  then  the  offer  is  automatically  withdrawn.  That  should  not  be  construed as permission to breach confidence. We reserve the right to take action against any parties who choose to act in breach of confidence.”

The letter was also marked “without prejudice save as to costs” and so it would have been wrong for me to have referred to it in an open forum prior to judgment.

I invite you to draw your own conclusions about the honesty of Rachel Riley, in the light of these facts.

I would certainly hope that they provide encouragement to donate to the CrowdJustice fund once again.

I may have said this before, and if I did, let me assure you I mean it just as much now as I did then: Let’s make it all worthwhile.

Have YOU donated to my crowdfunding appeal, raising funds to fight false libel claims by TV celebrities who should know better? These court cases cost a lot of money so every penny will help ensure that wealth doesn’t beat justice.

Vox Political needs your help!
If you want to support this site
but don’t want to give your money to advertisers)
you can make a one-off donation here:

Donate Button with Credit Cards

Here are four ways to be sure you’re among the first to know what’s going on.

1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (in the left margin). You can then receive notifications of every new article that is posted here.

2) Follow VP on Twitter @VoxPolitical

3) Like the Facebook page at

Join the Vox Political Facebook page.

4) You could even make Vox Political your homepage at

And do share with your family and friends – so they don’t miss out!

If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!

Buy Vox Political books so we can continue
fighting for the facts.

The Livingstone Presumption is now available
in either print or eBook format here:

HWG PrintHWG eBook

Health Warning: Government! is now available
in either print or eBook format here:

HWG PrintHWG eBook

The first collection, Strong Words and Hard Times,
is still available in either print or eBook format here:


5 thoughts on “The Riley libel case is NOT over – I’m planning an appeal

  1. Caroline Carney

    I was indeed very angry for you when I saw the verdict but have waited for your comments on it. When I read the judges statement I was utterly dumbfounded by it’s ludicrous conclusions and knew as you said you would be appealing that it would not go unchallenged. I contributed to your case and shall again and Rachel Riley “gaslighting” me and others as “vulnerable” has only strengthened my resolve. I am a disabled socialist who believes in human rights and the likes of Riley who appeared to have no knowledge of her own Judaism before Jeremy Corbyn was elected leader, I refer you to “I don’t look Jewish” which she said in an interview, is not going to stop myself and others standing up for people she trashes with her rubbish. I was on Twitter that night and after actually in some of those threads as she and her bestie Oberman would not leave a 16 year old girl and her family alone instead continuing their diatribe for days after initial contact. The judge has no understanding of how social media works and what happens in a pile on and her decision was bizarre for this alone.

  2. Alan Harrison

    Hello, Mike. Perhaps I’m a bit slow on the uptake, but how can even a “learned” judge conclude that (1) the comment was on a matter of public interest, but (3) that you were not reasonable to believe that it was a matter of public interest? This seems to be utterly self-contradictory.

    As for Riley’s slagging you off for keeping the offer confidential at the request of her own lawyers, words fail me. I’ll try to make another small contribution.

  3. El Dee

    I wish you well in your appeal. I was astonished that she had won the judgement and this type of lawfare prevents opinion pieces referencing anyone rich enough to be litigious. This appeal is in the best interests of free journalism, something becoming harder to find in this country..

Comments are closed.