Harriet Wistrich lies in her interview with the Sunday Telegraph, forcing them to suspend the article and retract her statements.

It was Sunday morning, and as I was having breakfast, I was greeted with a "google alert" on my phone. I checked the email - my name was back in the national press.

I clicked on the link. It was an interview with Harriet Wistrich in the Sunday Telegraph promoting her new book. It was a lengthy interview - a full page in the hard copy version - which also included several paragraphs about me and the Eleanor de Freitas case.

I'm not adverse to people talking about me or the Eleanor de Freitas case, if it is true or accurate. But these were plain lies.

For example, Wistrich had falsely claimed the only reason I wasn't prosecuted with rape, was because Eleanor suffered from bipolar, so was not seen as a reliable witness. The implication being the allegation of rape was true. No mention of the statements from the Attorney General, DPP, or any of the cctv or text message evidence which contradicted the account she gave to police.

She then went on to say that Eleanor become destabilised because of "his threats, which ultimately lead to her death". 

I could not believe what I was reading, was she actually suggesting that I caused her death through supposed harassment? Even though both the DPP and Attorney General have made statements to the contrary. Even though I was acquitted of harassment?

The facts are: I had no contact with Eleanor for 14 months before her death. And the CPS was the official prosecutor by then, I was just a witness in the case by the time of her death.  But here Wistrich was saying the complete opposite.

There was also another comment she made alleging that I "threatened the police with prosecution' giving the impression that I made baseless threats in order to harass the police. But no mention of the police paying me £10,000 in compensation, because I was a victim of their unlawful conduct.

Harriet Wistrich maybe a qualified lawyer, but she is economical with the truth when it comes to pushing her own agenda.

What was most telling about this interview is when she said: "I feel a boiling rage about him" [Economou], which is prima facie evidence that she has a chip on her shoulder about me, and wishes to cause me serious harm. I've always said this, and now I have it writing.

And that is why this blog exists, to defend myself against people like her, who keep making false statements in the national press, even 10 years on.

The reality is that I have been a victim of constant harassment by her, her feminist friends and the de Freitas family for the last 10 years. Do I really want to have this blog? No, but I have to, in order to counter the lies which are regularly published, especially they are made in the national press. I wish to live my life in peace without being named in the press as a rapist, even if through implication or defamatory hints and nudges.

Thankfully, Telegraph Newspapers suspended the article as soon as I contacted them, because of course I had evidence to show that Wistrich had lied. 

This suspension lasted 24 hrs and lead to a few comments on Twitter by bemused feminists wondering why the Harriet Wistrich interview had disappeared.

The amended article eventually went back online 24hrs later with the words complained of removed. 

A small victory, but not a good way to spend a Sunday - drafting emails and trying to fight off lies and defend the truth.

Harriet Wistrich Interview with the Sunday Telegraph 14th April 2024.

My nightmare seven year encounter with false accusers Eleanor de Freitas and her father David explained in one easy to read blog post.

In October 2012 I started to become friends with Eleanor de Freitas. I had known her cousin Lizzie Noel for years. We began to chat daily on Facebook messenger and by December 2012 we had exchanged over 500 messages. In all that time she appeared to be a completely normal and fun person, there was nothing out of the ordinary. She was intelligent and previously a straight 'A' student. She was assertive, independent and confident.

On December 22nd 2012 she sent me text messages insisting that we meet for a "massage session" even though I was apprehensive. She told me to "change my sheets" and that we would have "croissants in bed together" the next day.

The next day she came round to my flat and we had some lunch and I accompanied her whilst she did her Christmas shopping. We came back later that afternoon to my flat where we chatted for hours and hours. She called her father and told him where she was (as she was living with her parents at the time). We later had consensual sex that evening and she stayed the night. We were not drunk, we had one small (300ml) bottle of cider each. Not even enough to be over the drink drive limit.

We woke up and had some breakfast, we were getting on amazingly well. She was only meant to come over for lunch (the day before) but now we had been together for almost 24hrs. We were playing music and she was dancing around my living room. (I later learned she messaged a mutual friend that morning and told him she had "huge fun" with me). At 1130am we went shopping to Ann Summers, a shop which sells sex toys. We joked about getting a vibrating egg and during the shopping trip she bought no less than £340 of sex aids whilst I watched.

The excessive shopping trip caused me some concern and also the night before she told me she had depression (even though she seemed the exact opposite to me). I started to have my suspicions she might be a prostitute. At around 6pm that evening I did some searches online and found out she was indeed an escort. It was all a bit to much for me.

She called me up around 7pm after having sent me some very strange text messages. It was only minutes after I found out she was an escort. I did not know what to think. I had a bad gut feeling about her since the Ann Summers shopping trip and decided to end things there and then. I felt manipulated and told her not to contact me.

I did not realise that this sudden rejection, after a night of passion, would set her off on a spiral of revenge. And so the "snow ball effect" began. First she began to tell people that I "upset her", and slowly, slowly, the lies snowballed into more serious allegations, and eventually a rape allegation.

Later that evening I saw some bizarre Facebook posts. On 26th December her cousin sent me messages accusing me of having done something awful to Eleanor. On 29th December her mother called me to ask what had happened? I answered all her questions but stopped short of saying her daughter was a call girl.

Friends began to avoid me and rumors started to circulate. On 3rd January 2013 I was told by a friend that Eleanor was going round telling people I had raped her, tortured her and didn't let her escape from my flat. I couldn’t believe what I was hearing.

On 4th January I wrote to Eleanor and told her to stop spreading lies or I would report her for harassment. I also called her father to explain the situation (since his wife had contacted me days earlier) although there was no answer so I left a voicemail.

That evening I went to the police station to report Eleanor for harassment. But instead of taking the report the police told me that Eleanor had been to the police station an hour before I had arrived and alleged I raped her. I was arrested and taken into custody.

During my police interview it was alleged that I waterboarded and tortured Eleanor, as well as raping her. It was absurd. However at this stage I no evidence to prove my innocence so it was actually very scary. I did not sleep for weeks, smoked like a chimney and lost a lot of weight.

By the end of February 2013 Ann Summers had given me a copy of the CCTV that showed Eleanor and I shopping for £340 of sex toys the morning after the alleged rape. Not only that but friends provided text messages that showed she told them she had "huge fun together" and that she complained about me rejecting her. The police dropped the case, but thy weren't interested in prosecuting Eleanor for lying. They just shrugged their shoulders as if it was nothing and said "these things happen".

Unfortunately Eleanor continued to go round and tell people for months and months that she had been raped. My life continued to be a nightmare. I had people contacting me telling me about all these things she was saying about me. Rape allegations never go away. Especially if you are arrested. "That's the guy who was arrested for rape," people will always say.

Was I going to live with these ongoing accusations? No way.

I decided the only way to clear my name was to prosecute Eleanor myself, through a private prosecution. 

I hired a team of  specialist lawyers and in  August 2013 we took the CCTV and text message evidence, as well as other evidence and placed this evidence into court. Eleanor was issued with a summons. 

This is when things got even weirder. Instead of getting his daughter a lawyer David de Freitas wrote to the police to try to have me arrested for "harassment"…. He was complaining about my court case being “harassment”, even though it was quite literally my lawyers asking a court to consider evidence. 

I wanted a judge and a jury to see the evidence, which would lead to a verdict in my favour, so that I could prove my innocence, and get on with my life. But according to her father, that process was "harassment". Although in reality, it was me who was being harassed, for months on end, with the false accusations. 

Eleanor appeared in Westminster Magistrates Court in September 2013, charged with perverting the course of justice, it was just a first hearing.  Eleanor's lawyers then wrote to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) and asked them to take over my court case and stop it.

In the meantime Eleanor’s lawyers sent us a psychiatric report which said she was fit to stand trial. (It was a damning report and probably sent by her lawyers in error). In the report Eleanor complained extensively about her father and family life as having an impact on her mental health. There was no mention of me having an impact her mental health. It was mostly negative comments about her father. 

 

In December 2013 the CPS, wrote to the parties, saying they would take over and continue with the prosecution themselves. They found it was both in the public interest to prosecute Eleanor (for lying) and the case passed the "evidential stage". In other words, there was enough evidence for a realistic prospect of conviction. 

The decision to prosecute Eleanor was not taken lightly. The evidence was examined and ratified by the following high ranking officials: The Chief Crown Prosecutor for London; Head of the Rape Serious Sexual Assault Unit (RASSO), and the Deputy Chief Crown Prosecutor. All of these highly experienced prosecutors came to the conclusion that Eleanor must be taken to court, and that I was a victim of a false allegation of rape.

In January 2014 at a plea and case management hearing Eleanor kept up the lies and pleaded not guilty. The trial was all set for 7th of April. 

 

On the 4th of April my lawyer called me to her office. It was a Friday and the case was just three days away. I went up to my lawyers office, she told me to sit down and that's when she told me the news... 'Eleanor has killed herself'. I was shocked and of course I felt sorry for her parents, how could one not be.

 

I also was concerned about some form of retribution by her family. I was right. Within a month Eleanor’s mother Miranda de Freitas starting sending threatening messages to witnesses in the prosecution. Eventually she was reported for harassment and the police visited her to tell her to stop.

Seven months later on November 6th 2014 the story hit the press. Eleanor’s father David de Freitas had gone to pretty much every feminist organization, every newspaper and TV broadcaster saying his daughter was wrongly prosecuted and that there was no evidence that she had lied. He also gave my name to the press. Within 24hrs my name was all over the internet.

I contacted his lawyers to tell them there was CCTV and text message evidence to show his daughter had lied about the rape allegation, in the hope he would realise his error and stop spreading lies. I thought he has made a mistake and hadn't seen the evidence. Instead of listening his lawyers reported me to police for “harassment” and continued their false campaign.

Not only was my name in the papers as a supposed rapist, which was all false, I was now back in the police station being interviewed for this latest harassment complaint. It was truly awful to have to be in that situation. I was being falsely accused again and again.

Most newspapers refused to delete inaccuracies and refused to mention the CCTV and text message evidence and my family received death threats. They were all siding with the feminists. So I went to the Mail On Sunday and I told my story and also set up a website publishing the CCTV and other evidence.

David de Freitas went back to the police and reported me for harassment again. Saying it was upsetting to see his daughter on CCTV shopping for sex toys and portrayed as a prostitute. But then why the did he bring this into the public domain then if he did not the actual truth published?

In December 2014 the Director of Public Prosections made a public statement confirming there was evidence which contradicted the account Eleanor de Freitas gave to police. But within minutes of this being published David de Freitas went to the press saying this was not true. 

 

I had had enough and instructed lawyers to start legal action against Mr de Freitas for libel. This was a man who only wanted to fight and not stop his lies. He had libeled me for 6 weeks and there was a limit. Before then I was open to the fact that he might be given some slack but he had now gone too far. All I wanted was peace in my life and to be left alone.

By August 2015 his lawyers had said in writing that he would continue going to the press and that he could repeat his allegations when he wanted. What to do? Let him accuse me of rape again and again? Or put a stop to it? Somehow he had managed to pursued every feminist charity in the UK that his daughter was innocent and I was guilty, this was me against an entire feminist army that would seek to destroy my reputation for the rest of my life. Things on the internet don't disappear. Every person I would ever meet would look me up (e.g. to find me on LinkedIn) and then they would see all this awful nonsense. It was important to clear my name in court.

The libel case was scheduled for June 2016. In the meantime David de Freitas, his lawyers and his feminist charities had written dozens of letters to the Police and CPS asking me to be charged with harassment. Eventually the authorities gave in to his demands and charged me with harassment, even thought I had not had contact since telling his lawyers to stop talking to the press almost eighteen months before. Because the case was in the public eye the authorities were acting under pressure from his feminists groups and had to be seen as not being soft, so they went ahead and prosecuted me.

I was put on trial in June 2016 for harassment and the judge found me not guilty. Judge Tan Ikram even said I was a man wrongly accused. I was relieved someone understood what was going on.

Two weeks later we had the libel case and the result quickly followed six weeks later. In his judgement My Justice Warby agreed that David de Freitas caused serious harm to my reputation and that the rape allegations made by Mr de Freitas were not true. But in a bizarre twist he said that David de Freitas free speech rights were more important than my reputation (also known as the Public interest Defence - Section 4 of the Defamation Act 2013). In other words he said it was more important de Freitas should be able to speak about his dead daughter even if what he was saying wasn’t true. And on that basis I lost the case and was ordered to pay David de Freitas legal bill, starting with a payment of £400,000. And was just the first installment! The full amount I was being asked to pay (at that time) was around £1.5m.

I couldn’t believe it. So here’s what has just happened. I was falsely accused of rape in the press for a six week period, (with the websites quoting David de Freitas defamatory statements to the world for two years). He knew there is CCTV and text messages that proved I was innocent but lied to the press regardless to fit his story. That's what we found out at trial. I asked him to stop at the time of his press campaign, by writing to his lawyers, and he continued. And not only does he get away with it I am ordered to pay all his legal bill. What justice is that? The name of that judge is Sir Mark Warby and he knows he got it wrong. He clearly felt sorry for de Freitas and made him win on a technicality.

So of course I decided to appeal. If I didn’t appeal then I would be bankrupted. So I went to the court of appeal. In December 2016 the court of appeal agreed the judgement was potentially wrong and agreed to hear the case in full. In the meantime just as expected David de Freitas issued bankruptcy proceedings against me, which were stayed pending the outcome of the appeal.

The appeal took ages though, two more years in fact. David de Freitas kept making applications to the court to have me bankrupted (unsuccessfully) and by the time we arrived in the Court of Appeal it was April 2018 - over five years since I was falsely accused of rape. I was exhausted by the court process.

Out of the blue in June 2018 the Attorney General made a public statement confirming again that it was correct to prosecute Eleanor de Freitas for making her rape allegations. It doesn't say I am innocent, but it implies there was a good reason to take her to court for lying.

In November 2018 we got the result of the appeal…. Unfortunately the court of appeal made the same decision as the original judge (Section 4 Defence). Freedom of speech wins over reputation they say. The judgement however does have a couple of pages dedicated to the CCTV and text message evidence which shows I am innocent [see paragraph 45 and 61]. Any lawyer will read the fine detail and see that I am innocent, but the general public are not going to read an entire judgement. To them losing a libel case means something else. However the section 4 defence in no way implies I am guilty, all it means is de Freitas gets a special immunity in the face of his false allegations, but it does mean I am going to have to pay for de Freitas £2m legal bill, and face bankruptcy.

 

[NB The judgement mentions de Freitas did not name me during the press interviews. This is a legal technicality. He actually provided my name to the press in the form of documents, which was a sneaky way for him to get away with naming me, without it being in a press statement, and of course the press published my name].

 

On January 7th 2019 David de Freitas took me to the High Court and  bankrupted me on the back of his demand for £2m. I didn't have £2m so the court bankrupted me. I was a bankrupt for a year, until 7th January 2020.  

 

And that's my story. I was falsely accused in public for years on end, my case throw out of court even though I am innocent and then bankrupted by my accuser. 

 

And would I do it again? Absolutely. Anyone that says Eleanor is a victim of rape will be sent court papers very swiftly, because it is completely false. Of course I will defend myself.

One small victory though was that I did take the Metropolitan Police to court, myself and with no help from lawyers, for police misconduct during the "rape" investigation (for refusing to prosecute Eleanor or look at my cctv and text message evidence) and won £10,000. Unfortunately the press were not interested in reporting this. 

 

The real shame about this case is that it's individuals like Eleanor de Freitas that cause real rape victims problems because when the real rapists are taken to trial the jury will think: "I wonder if she's not a vengeful liar like Eleanor". Real rape victims are now suffering because of her false allegations.

Mr de Freitas is equally guilty of spreading harmful misinformation around. He has told the world in his press campaign (and continues to do so) that Eleanor was prosecuted on the back of "no evidence" which will make real rape victims scared of coming forward thinking they could be prosecuted if their story is inconsistent.  It is very important that people know there was a mountain of evidence against Eleanor and even two of her own doctors said she was fit to stand trial. It was a rare thing to have such a prosecution, because of the amount of evidence.

Some important facts:

• Eleanor made her first false rape complaint against another man in 2012, I was her second victim.
• She falsely accused her own parents of poisoning and imprisoning her in 2012, this is even admitted by her father... who argues it shows she was 'vulnerable' and should never have been put on trial.
  
• The case was only ever made public when David de Freitas went to the press in November 2014, and put his daughters (and my) name out there all over the internet.
  
• David de Freitas knew about the cctv and text message evidence before he went to the press, but mislead the public to fit his story, and said there was no evidence.

If anyone reading this wants more details please don’t hesitate to contact me although you can read the story in full and see some papers by clicking on archive on the right hand side. You can also read a letter written by the Director of Public Prosecutions answering David de Freitas questions about the case, which was referred to in the libel proceedings as was the psychiatric report and other documents.

David de Freitas is declared bankrupt over unpaid taxes.

Today, at the High Court in London, David de Freitas (Eleanor's father) was officially declared bankrupt, for non payment of £130,812.26 taxes, dating back to 1998. Despite this he was acting as a financial planner throughout the period. The official bankruptcy notice, which is a public document, can be found here.

Royal Courts of Justice.

Nina Cresswell: Another feminist peddling false information about the Eleanor de Freitas case.

Here we go again. Another feminist jumping on the bandwagon. In the last few weeks Nina Cresswell has been making false statements on social media and in various news interviews, implying that Eleanor de Freitas was a victim of rape.

Yet again I had to write to these news publications, asking for corrections.

I have no idea who Nina Cresswell is, other than she recently won a court case regarding an allegation of rape, evolving someone she met on a night out. I know this, because she has been writing about her victory on the internet and doing a large number of press interviews.

Now, for some bizarre reason she is writing about my case, and making comparisons. Not only is she bringing up my case, she is making false statements about it.

Nina, if you're reading this post, please leave me alone. You have no idea about my case, you don't know me, you never met Eleanor, and by making false statements you are not assisting your own credibility.

The facts are, both the Attorney General and Director of Public Prosecutions have found that it was correct to prosecute Ms de Freitas and they spent a very long time going through all the evidence. 

The coroner, in High Court documents, also remarked that the motive of suicide could also have been caused or contributed by her problematic relationship with her parents, which was extensively documented in various medical records including a lengthy psychiatric report.

Nina Cresswell

David de Freitas fighting bankruptcy proceedings over £130,812.26 in unpaid taxes going back to 1998.

HMRC v DAVID GERALD VIVIAN FITZWILLIAM DE FREITAS

David de Freitas is in a battle with HMRC over an unpaid tax bill of £130,812.26, dating back to 1998 and relates to tax years 1998/99 to 2000/2001 and 2005/06 to 2015/16.

On the 4th of August 2022, Judge Passfield, sitting at the High Court, ordered Mr de Freitas to pay £130,812.26 by no later than the 4th November and saying:

'In the circumstances, it is very unlikely that the court will be prepared to grant any further adjournment at the next hearing of the Petition, which I will duly mark as final'.

Paragraph 7 of the judgement says: Since at least the 1998/99 tax year, David de Freitas has carried on business as a financial planner on a self-employed basis. 

But how can this man be allowed to give financial planning advice to people, when he doesn't even pay his own taxes? In my opinion, this is further evidence that David de Freitas is a dishonest man.

The judgement can be found here.

Harriet Wistrich and Julie Bindel: The feminists who mislead the public.

Eleanor de Freitas was a  liar. In 2013 she falsely accused me of rape. In 2012 she falsely accused her parents and landlords of abuse. Even her parents have admitted the latter in court documents.

Both the Attorney General and the Director of Public Prosecutions have made public statements confirming that it was correct to prosecute Ms de Freitas for perverting the course of justice. The DPP noted that her prosecution relied on no less than 10 pieces of evidence. This included witness statements as well as cctv and text messages, including one from Eleanor herself saying that she had "huge fun" with me, sent at the exact time she was supposedly raped.

For the record, I was never charged with  rape. It was Eleanor who was charged with lying, not the other way around.

This month, some nine years after the allegations, an organisation called Centre for Women's Justice is using Ms de Freitas name to promote their cause, implying she was a victim. This organisation is run by Harriet Wistrich, a well-known feminist.

Last week Julie Bindel (Wistrich's partner) wrote an article which appeared in The Critic magazine stating: 

"We live in a rape culture where legions of men feel entitled to commit sex crimes, secure in the knowledge that they will very probably get away with it.". 

The final paragraph ends by saying the Eleanor de Freitas case is "one example" of this, thus implying  I'm guilty of rape. This is not only untrue, it is seriously defamatory.

Even if they don't believe me, then surely they can recognise that both the Attorney General and DPP looked at the case and concluded there was strong evidence that Eleanor had lied? Even the coroner said there were many things on Eleanor's mind before she died. In a psychiatric report, Eleanor complains extensively about her family, not me.

The real truth is that Wistrich and Bindel are seriously misleading the public, and they know it. But they are not alone. There are  other feminist organisations who follow their example.

Back in 2014, when this case hit the press, a huge number of women's groups jumped on the bandwagon, parading Eleanor's name as if she was a hero. I was alarmed because it implied I was a rapist, which is categorically untrue. I contacted the charities, offering to show them evidence that proved I was innocent.

Every one of these charities declined. They didn't want to know. They did not want to see the cctv, text messages or any other evidence. They were prepared to support Eleanor, unconditionally, without looking at the facts and continued to peddle false information.

When I read about the same charities making statements on other cases in the press,  I just can't take them seriously. Because I know how they operate. The charities in question are: 

Refuge, Justice For Women, Women Against Rape, Rape Crisis, Eaves, One in four, Nia, Liberty, Centre for Women Justice, Victim Support, Campaign to End Rape, End Violence against Women.

Below: Harriet Wistrich and Julie Bindel.

 

 

Online video of Eleanor de Freitas emerges showing her true colours

Last week I was having a look at the website analytics for this blog. As I was looking through the data I noticed that someone had visited an online video  before visiting my blog. I went online to see why online traffic was coming from this source. 

 

It was in fact a video of Eleanor de Freitas, which explains the connection to my own blog. The video was titled "posh British escort shagged for cash".

 

In the December 2012 blog entries, I explained it was when I discovered Ms de Freitas was an escort that I broke off the relationship. She got angry and then made a false accusation as an act of revenge.

 

For many years, I was accused by her family and various feminists (Julie Bindel,  Harriet Wistrich, Lisa Avalos) that I was lying about this and making it up to upset the family. 

 

Well, now I have video evidence of Eleanor talking into camera confirming that she was indeed a prostitute, proving that I was telling the truth all along.

 

Below: A screenshot from the video I found. 

 

 

Note: I have not re-published the actual video nor have I linked to it. At all times Eleanor de Freitas was aware she is being filmed on the video, consents to being filmed and authorized it's publication online. It is clearly a business transaction in which she was paid. I have no involvement with the publication or any re-publication of this video and am merely speaking about its existence and how it relates to my legal case involving her. This is not entirely new information, Eleanor de Freitas escorting has been discussed since 2015 by the national press, and is already in the public domain for example.

 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/11478683/Eleanor-de-Freitas-false-rape-case-Escort-rumours-heightened-fear-of-prosecution.html

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/womans-suicide-after-fears-of-exposure-as-an-escort

Corrupt police officer Julian King resigns and is found GUILTY of misconduct in his absence.

It was DI Julian King (and DC Phil Dial), from the Metropolitan Police Sapphire unit who investigated Ms de Freitas false rape claims back in 2013. Now DI King has resigned before any action could be taken against him with regards to:

- Withholding evidence form the CPS

- Leaking information about me to the press

- Refusing to watch CCTV or text message evidence

Although DI King resigned the police recorded the allegations made against him as "proven" - in other words DI Julian King has been found GUILTY of misconduct in relation to the above.

These officers (along with Eleanor) probably thought I wouldn't follow up on their misconduct. It's been seven years, but I am glad I didn't give up. People who break the law must face the consequences.

Metropolitan Police pay me £10,000 in compensation.

The Metropolitan Police have paid me £10,000 in general damages with regards to the very serious misconduct of Detective Inspector Julian King and Detective Constable Phil Dial in which they:

- Both refused to watch CCTV evidence I provided them with, and never looked at text messages that showed Eleanor de Freitas had made a false allegation of rape.

- Both knew that Eleanor de Freitas had a history of making false rape complaints, but let her get away with it again and again.

- Detective Inspector King also breached the data protection act releasing my confidential information  to the de Freitas family without my consent.

Last year, the Daily Mail briefly reported the Police Misconduct. Click here to see the article. The officers are still under investigation by the IPCC and are facing a misconduct hearing at some point in the future. The outcome of that investigation is not yet known and that procedure is separate from my case against the police.

As well as receiving compensation from the police, it is possible that the officers will face disciplinary action if they are found guilty.

Watch this space.

David de Freitas bankrupts me.

Six seeks weeks ago I lost my appeal (in the court of appeal) which meant I had to pay David de Freitas legal costs. The judge ordered me to pay an "interim payment" of £400,000 by the 19th December 2018, but I had run out of money.

Mr de Freitas legal bill is probably somewhere around £1.8m. I didn't make the payment of £400,000 so David de Freitas applied to have me bankrupted and that's what has happened. It's no secret, the bankruptcy is being advertised in the Gazette as with all bankrupts, so might as well put it here as part of the narrative.

I've moved out of my flat I lived in for 19 years and now living in a rental. That flat will be sold to pay off Mr de Freitas legal bill. It's all a bit sad, but it can't get any worse than this. There is nothing to lose at this stage.

Overcoming setbacks and making comebacks are what makes life interesting, so even though I should be depressed I am actually pretty upbeat and excited about the future. It only gets better from here.  Bring on 2019!

Defamation Appeal: Judgement Day: Court affirms freedom of speech is more important than reputation, even though I was the victim of a false accusation.

PRESS STATEMENT ON TODAYS COURT OF APPEAL DECISION

Four years ago David de Freitas made a series of defamatory allegations in the national press implying I had raped his daughter. At the time my family received death threats and my life was turned upside down.

I asked him to stop and threatened legal action but Mr de Freitas continued to repeat his allegations. It was after the fifth defamatory statement that I commenced legal proceedings.

Several months later his lawyers stated that he would continue going to the press and that nothing could prevent him from repeating the 'words complained of'.

I had two choices: Do nothing and be labelled a rapist for the rest of my life, or go to court, clear my name and get an injunction preventing repetition.

A trial date was set for June 2016. Three months before trial I made a 'without prejudice' offer asking for nominal damages of £1 and 25% of my legal costs to settle the case, on condition Mr de Freitas accepted liability. All I ever wanted was to clear my name.

I never received any response to my settlement offer and the trial went ahead. The judge accepted that David de Freitas had caused serious harm to my reputation but ruled that his free speech rights were more important and gave him a special immunity known as the 'public interest defence'. My defamation claim was dismissed.

I appealed the judgement and today, after a further two years of legal battles, the court of appeal dismissed my claim.

I am incredibly disappointed. In a nutshell this judgement says that it was perfectly legal for Mr de Freitas to wrongly accuse me of raping his daughter, on five separate occasions and in the face of evidence which showed I was innocent. Mr de Freitas never advanced a defence of truth or honest opinion.

This is the first time the 'public interest defence' has been successfully deployed. It is not without controversy because it allows the innocent to be wrongly accused, whilst the accuser is given complete immunity.

Still awaiting the result of the appeal, as the Summer legal term comes to an end on the 31st July.

The appeal was heard on 17 and 18th April and was reserved for judgement. There is unfortunately no way of telling when it will be handed down. Being a complicated case I anticipated several months.

The Summer legal term comes to an end on July 31st, and Autumn term resumes on October 1st. So there won't be a judgment handed down during that period. 

Although the wait is a little frustrating, it's nice to know that no 'life changing' judgement will be arriving in my email inbox for a couple of months. 

It could go either way. And the result could be potentially be very scary.

And now, it's time to relax and forget about the case for a couple of months.

Attorney General Jeremy Wright QC MP says: It was right for the prosecution of Eleanor de Freitas to go ahead.

After careful consideration, the Attorney General Jeremy Wright QC MP has decided not to order an independent inquiry into the prosecution of Eleanor De Freitas.

The request for a new inquiry or review was made by Ms De Freitas’ father David De Freitas. Ms De Freitas was charged with perverting the course of justice by the Crown Prosecution Service in 2014.

The Attorney concluded that there has already been a sufficient review of the case within the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), including by Alison Saunders, the Director of Public Prosecution. The internal review process carefully considered the points that Mr De Freitas and others have raised, and reasonable conclusions have already been reached.

Commenting on his decision, the Attorney General said:

I recognise that this was a difficult case with a tragic outcome and I extend my deepest sympathies to Mr De Freitas and his family. However, I have carefully considered the concerns raised by Mr De Freitas and I am satisfied that this case has already been subject to extensive scrutiny within the CPS, and that it was right for the prosecution to go ahead.

Official article on Government website can be viewed by clicking here

Attorney General Jeremy Wright QC MP

I have a stalker called Lisa Avalos who keeps spreading lies about me on the internet.

For the last four years a woman based in America, has become obsessed with my case. Her name is Lisa Avalos. She also goes by the name "Professor Avalos", a supposed law professor.

I first spotted her at the harassment trial. She had flown all the way from Arkansas, USA to be there. On the day of the verdict, before the judgement had been handed down I saw her  giving out her business cards to the press, saying "call me". She was sure I was going to be found guilty.

She was wrong. I was found not guilty, and she has been mad ever since. Ever since I was found not guilty she has done everything to try to show the opposite.

It's like a dog that won't let go of a bone.

I later found out that she became friends with David de Freitas and his wife, and they have had several dinners together and even visited the family home in Fulham.

Since 2014 Miss Avalos seems to be constantly writing about me on the internet. It is amazing how a person can become obsessed with you and it certainly feels (from my perspective) like stalking. She visits my blog at least once per day. I know this from the i.p. logs.

She has visited this site hundreds of times. Sometimes even sending me anonymous messages, that unknown to her come from her i.p. address.

When you take the unsolicited messages, travelling 5000 miles to see me in court, and her repeated allegations about me - I would call that a clear case of stalking. 

It seems I am not the only one who has made complaints about her though. A quick search on the internet will find other articles alleging that she is a liar, and a busy body in other people's cases.

This is the first time I am writing about her on my blog because to me she is a nobody who has a chip on the shoulder, so why would I want to write about such a person?

Today I am writing because Miss Avalos has again this month written about me, stating that I am guilty of the rape of Eleanor de Freitas, and this time she contacted the press trying to push her story which is based on a web of lies.

I have in the past asked her to stop writing about me, but she refuses. In America that's  called: The First Amendment aka "freedom of speech".

Professor Lisa Avalos has repeatedly stated that there was no evidence that Eleanor de Freitas lied and says that I raped her, which is totally false. Click Here to see the evidence that Lisa Avalos doesn't want anyone to know about.

For the last few days I've been dealing with a large media organisation called Buzzfeed who were proposing to re-ignite the story on me, saying they would publish "things you won't like".

In fact it was Lisa Avalos who contacted them, trying to push a false story about me which says I'm a guilty of rape.

An exhaustive two days was spent dealing with lawyers, sending out letters and documents to Buzzfeed showing them that I am in fact innocent. This is all very tiring. Especially when you've been dealing with this for four years. 

Lisa Avalos, if you're reading this please stop stalking me and move on.

Professor Lisa Avalos from the United States.

Five days to go until the hearing, but what is my appeal about?

Recap

In 2014 David de Freitas ran a coordinated press campaign, saying that I had raped his daughter and got away with it. Mr de Freitas held himself to be an "expert" on the case, and the press believed every word he said. 

It was not the press' fault, because they reasonably believed that Mr de Freitas had told them the truth. Before he went to the press, Mr de Freitas had in his possession full details of CCTV and text message evidence that showed there was strong evidence to show his daughter had lied. But he did not tell the press about that. He concealed those facts and went even further than that. He said there was "no evidence" that his daughter had lied, which was not true at all.

Mr de Freitas press campaign started on 6th November 2014. Within a few hours of seeing the press I notified Mr de Freitas via a hand delivered letter that everything he was telling the press was wrong.

Mr de Freitas ignored everything I had to say, and continued accusing me of rape. The next day he told the Today Programme on Radio 4 at 8:10am that I had probably raped his daughter. Later that day he went on BBC News TV and said the same thing.

I continued to protest my innocence to his lawyer Harriet Wistrich. I sent 27 emails showing them the evidence that proved I was innocent. But Mr de Freitas would not stop. In fact he accused me of "harassment". [NB I was later put on trial for this supposed "harassment" and was acquitted].

A month later, on 9th December 2014, David de Freitas continued his allegations in the Guardian and Telegraph Newspapers, continuing to assert that I had probably raped his daughter. At this point I decided to sue for libel. David de Freitas was on a mission and would not stop unless restrained by a court order. 

I issued my claim in March 2015. He filed his defence a month later. In the run up to the trial my lawyers asked Mr de Freitas (via part 18 questions) if he would continue going to the press. The reply came back that he would continue going to the press and nothing could prevent him from repeating his allegations. See image below.

If Mr de Freitas had reassured me that he would stop making false accusations then I would have no reason to sue. And so the case continued to trial...

In June 2016 there was an 8 day trial. At the end of trial the judge agreed that David de Freitas press campaign was based on false statements; that were highly defamatory and caused "serious harm" to my reputation. We should have won.

But in his judgement, Warby J said it was more important for David de Freitas to have freedom of speech than to repair my reputation, even though it caused serious harm and was not true.

Judge Warby dismissed my claim and ordered me to pay David de Freitas 90% of his legal costs of around £1.4m. [NB His legal costs are high because he is represented by no win no fee lawyers, who charge double fees]. A few months later David de Freitas applied to have me bankrupted. I am still fighting bankruptcy, which is on hold pending this appeal.

And that's what the appeal is about: Freedom of Speech vs Right to Reputation. The appeal is about common sense. If you wrongly accuse someone of rape on Radio, TV, Newspapers and Online and ignore everything the innocent victim says then you ought to be held to account. Especially when you know what you are saying is not true.

The appeal will be heard at the Royal Courts of Justice on 17 and 18th April 2018. The result will then be handed down at the Judges discretion,  usually 6 to 12 months after the hearing. 

An extract from "Part 18 Questions" in July 2015, eight months after David de Freitas press campaign.

Police to face Misconduct Hearing

Nearly five years after my complaint to the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) the officers who investigated the rape allegations, Detective Inspector Julian King and Detective Constable Phil Dial, are facing a formal misconduct hearing.

The reason that I took out a Private Prosecution against Eleanor in the first place was that the police refused to investigate her for lying, despite there being a mountain of strong evidence.

This report is really important because it contradicts everything Mr de Freitas was saying to the press. The truth was the Police Officers did not do a proper job.

The report says the Police Officers:

1. Refused to watch CCTV evidence.

2. Never examined the telephone downloads which contained crucial text messages.

3. Never asked Ms de Freitas about inconsistencies in her story.

4. Did not speak to important witnesses.

5. "Told Mr Economou to go away and collect the evidence himself"

This was also reported by the Daily Mail, see it here. The officers will face a public misconduct hearing at a later date and more details will emerge then.

Good News: Appeal listed for 17 April 2018

Good news. The libel case is going to an appeal which will be heard 17-18 April 2018. 

In June we had a short one hour hearing to lift the £400,000 condition to appeal. The judge ruled that I didn't have to pay the £400,000, but unfortunately ruled that I had to pay £120,000 as security.

Despite the good news I am grumpy about the £120,000. Quite frankly this condition to pay £120,000 to appeal is deeply unfair. In the last 5 years I have paid out over £1m in legal fees trying to defend my name. My flat is mortgaged up to the hilt and I have pretty much run out of money. I am going for broke on this now.

Since December 2016 David de Freitas applied for my bankruptcy and it's been a deeply unpleasant experience. Whilst at the same time David de Freitas is represented by an army of lawyers who are on a "no win no fee" arrangement. If I lose they will charge me double fees at over £1200 per hour as their "success fee".

One of his lawyers is Manual Barca QC who is in the top 10 defamation lawyers in the country. To date David de Freitas has spent absolutely nothing on legal fees; he had publicly accused me of raping his daughter; got away with it; drained me of cash and now holding me to ransom again.

The fight will continue to clear my name. It will continue on April 17th 2018. Not long to go now.

Court of Appeal - a £400,000 problem

So today I got permission to appeal the libel case. That was good news.

But there was a twist. The court granted the appeal hearing on condition that I pay £400,000 within 14 days.

If I don't pay £400,00 then there's no appeal hearing...

On top of the actual appeal of the libel case I now have to appeal the £400,000 condition. This is not simple. Today is the 23rd December and I have only 7 days to fill in the application form to request a the hearing to get that £400,000 condition removed. Then we can go to the actual appeal itself.

So complicated.

And a lot of hard work. This isn't going to be simple. If i want to lift the £400,000 condition then I need to disclose all of my finances to the court and to David de Freitas and his lawyers. The process is extremely intrusive.

Mr de Freitas will now get to see all my bank statements, see where I do my shopping, he'll get all my tax returns etc etc.

I spent all night long, sorting out my papers. I didn't leave my office until 4am. It was exhausting and just terribly depressing. Here is a short video I took:

Permission to Appeal

Good news! I have permission to appeal the libel judgement. If it goes to appeal and I get the judgement overturned then I won't be going bankrupt anymore.

We applied for permission to appeal back in September, and for the last three months the court for appeal have been reviewing the case papers.

The court of appeal has read through the papers and have written to following:

"The learned judge's judgement was long and careful. I am nevertheless persuaded that for the reasons set out in Counsel's skeleton argument there is a realist prospect of persuading the court that he was wrong to regard the section 4 defence as established particularly in circumstances where as the judge observed there was much to be said for the appellant's legal analysis and the defendant was pursuing a media strategy which does not appeal to have recognised any need for reference to the appellants side of the story and his answer to the serious allegations made against him. In addition the appeal raises important questions about the ambit of the section 4 defence in cases of this kind.

I am also persuaded that there is a realist prospect of persuading the full court that the judge was wrong to find that the claimant would have suffered no serious harm to his reputation or its likelihood as a result of the 3 November items"

See below:

David de Freitas trying to bankrupt me

Today David de Freitas issued bankruptcy proceedings against me.

I lost the libel case in July and was ordered to pay David de Freitas 90% of his legal costs including a £400,000 "interim payment". So far I haven't paid, because I don't have that kind of money.

I contact the lawyers and they say I need to turn up at court on the 7th February at the High Court where I will be made bankrupt. I will lose everything. Unless I can pay £400,000 before then, or unless I get permission from the court of appeal, to appeal my case. We are still waiting for an answer...

It's depressing.  I have nothing more to say.

See below.

Defamation Trial: Judgment Day: Judge agrees my reputation was damaged but says free speech is more important and I lose my case on a technicality.

I already know what the judgement is. The judge gave all the parties a draft of the judgement 3 days ago, but I wasn't allowed to tell anyone until it was handed down.

I was at a friends wedding in Cyprus when I found out the news. It was Monday and I was about to drive back to the airport. It was going to be a long drive of around three hours.

At the conclusion of the libel trial the judge indicated that he would hand down the judgement within a few weeks. Six weeks had now passed.

After breakfast, just as I was about to check out of the hotel I received a text message from my lawyer saying "judgement has arrived". We agreed on those words, so not to give the game away. I would call him when I was ready to hear the news.... and he would reveal all.

It was July 25th 2016, and Mr de Freitas defamatory press campaign had taken place 17 months ago.

It had been a long 17 months and I was up to my eyeballs in debt with my own legal costs. The costs had spiralled out of control. We are talking hundreds of thousands of pounds.

Unlike me, Mr de Freitas had not spent a penny on lawyers. He was represented by "no win no fee" lawyers. The lawyers took his case on because if they won they could charge a 100% "uplift fee". Essentially they could double their fees if they won and I would have to foot the bill.

If they won I would have to write him a cheque for £1.2m as well as having paid all of my own legal costs. If he won I would be paying out over £2m.

I called my lawyer Colin to find out the news. I was standing outside. I was almost out of breath in anticipation. "Colin, tell me... tell me what the result is..."

He paused, and slowly said, "It's bad news, you have lost".

I almost fainted. I couldn't believe it. I was now £2m in debt. I was going lose everything I own. I was going bankrupt.

The drive back to the airport was horrible. I gave two people a lift and I just couldn't speak. I was lost in my own thoughts of the horror of having lost this case.

This wasn't supposed to happen. In two days time the press will be saying I lost. I should have been the other way around. I was devastated.

But how could I have lost?

I had looked at the judgement. It was over 100 pages long. We did in fact prove everything we needed to prove. The judge agreed that:

1. David de Freitas was responsible for making the statements.

2. His statements implied I was guilty of rape and they were seriously defamatory.

3. His statements caused serious harm to my reputation.

But the judge said that "David de Freitas free speech rights" was more important that repairing my reputation and that it was more important for Mr de Freitas to be able to talk about his dead daughter freely in the press, even if he was accused me of rape which wasn't true.

At no point did David de Freitas even attempt to show that what he was saying was true. The truth was not pleaded at trial. Instead he had won on a "public interest defence" which was based on a "reasonable belief" that what he was saying was in the public interest.

It was a crazy judgement. How can lying to the press be reasonable?

What was the point of having libel laws, if people can accused you of rape and get away with it, when they didn't even try to prove what they were saying was correct?

On the 27th July we all turned up at court and the judge handed down the judgement. It went public. Within a few hours the news that i had lost my libel case was all over the Internet. The next day it was in the front page of the Daily Telegraph.

Worse was to come though. The judge ordered me to pay David de Freitas legal costs and I had to pay an "interim payment" £400,000 within two months, otherwise I was going bankrupt...

Newspapers on display at a petrol station the day after I lost the case.

Something funny happened that I forgot to mention

Something I forgot to mention last week...

I was about to cross the street when the person I was with turned to me and said,"Look who it is!"

I looked up and opposite me on the other side of the road about to cross to my side was Judge Tan Ikram.

I couldn't believe it. This was the judge that had acquitted me of harassment two weeks before!

What are the chances???

We both clocked each other as we were about to cross the road. I nodded my head in a 'thank you' gesture and he gave me a cheeky grin as he walked past as if to say 'you're welcome' and he disappeared into the distance.

It made my day. He is my hero. He found me not guilty and understood what had really been going on. Thank you Judge Tan Ikram.

Judge Tan Ikram

Defamation Case: The Trial

Finally we were at trial.

Ten days ago I was acquitted of harassment. Now all I had to do was win the libel case and I was on a home run.

The libel case was very complicated.

We were complaining about 7 sets of publications. There was one Radio interview, one TV interview and 5 newspaper articles.

All of this occurred over a period of 5 weeks, between the 6th November 2014 to the 10th December 2014.

Each publication would have to be examined very carefully. The meaning of the words words have to be established, and whether it caused serious harm.

Our case was very strong. It was strong because I warned Mr de Freitas that I would take legal action after the first publication, but he continued defaming me.

Our case was that he continued defaming me over 5 weeks and each time I contacted his lawyers to protest at what he was saying, telling him that it wasn't true.

If he had stopped after the first defamatory statement then he might have been excused for making an honest mistake but he ploughed on regardless. There was no defence.

This trial was very long and complicated. It was much less exciting than the harassment trial. There were lots of complicated arguments between the lawyers citing many authorities.

The trial lasted for 7 full days. We were in courtroom 13 of the Royal Court of Justice, a big Gothic building in the strand. That's the room where many of the famous libel cases have been heard over the years. Unfortunately most libel cases fail. Libel is a very difficult thing to litigate. As the case progressed I looked around the room imagining the various parties over the years giving evidence from the witness box. This was a place of history with its old wooden pews, stained-glass windows and three foot thick stone walls.

On the final morning each party gave a closing speech and that was it. Time to wait.

I was feeling confident. There had been no surprises at trial, it went how we expected it to go. Mr de Freitas and his witness didn't say anything terribly helpful in his defence.

But this was to be the first time the section 4 defence had been deployed in a libel case. So it was new territory for the judge. The Defamation Act 2013 was relatively new, so there was an element of uncertainty.

What is the section 4 defence?

In libel cases usually the person making the defamatory statement has to prove that what they are saying is true. If they can't prove it was true then they lose. In this case David de Freitas was not going to go down that path. He was not pleading the truth. He was pleading a section 4 defence.

The section 4 defence is really designed to protect journalists, should they make an innocent mistake and can show responsible journalism. If a journalist wrote what he believed was an impartial story and accidentally libelled someone then they would be pardoned by the court if they had acted in a responsible manner.

Over the years the libel courts had come up with the following checklist, which is often referred to as the Reynolds Defence named after Albert Reynolds libel case. The court of appeal has previously ruled that:

Depending on the circumstances, the matters to be taken into account include the following. The comments are illustrative only.

1. The seriousness of the allegation. The more serious the charge, the more the public is misinformed and the individual harmed, if the allegation is not true.

2. The nature of the information, and the extent to which the subject-matter is a matter of public concern.

3. The source of the information. Some informants have no direct knowledge of the events. Some have their own axes to grind, or are being paid for their stories.

The steps taken to verify the information.

4. The status of the information. The allegation may have already been the subject of an investigation which commands respect.

5. The urgency of the matter. News is often a perishable commodity.

6. Whether comment was sought from the plaintiff. He may have information others do not possess or have not disclosed. An approach to the plaintiff will not always be necessary.

7. Whether the article contained the gist of the plaintiff's side of the story.

8. The tone of the article. A newspaper can raise queries or call for an investigation. It need not adopt allegations as statements of fact.

9. The circumstances of the publication, including the timing.

This list is not exhaustive. The weight to be given to these and any other relevant factors will vary from case to case. Any disputes of primary fact will be a matter for the jury, if there is one. The decision on whether, having regard to the admitted or proved facts, the publication was subject to qualified privilege is a matter for the judge. This is the established practice and seems sound. A balancing operation is better carried out by a judge in a reasoned judgement than by a jury. Over time, a valuable corpus of case law will be built up.

In order to win the case Mr de Freitas would have to show that he followed the above checklist or at least a large proportion of it. Let's go through above list, in terms of my case:

1. He accused me of rape, and did not plead a case of truth at trial.

2.  It was agreed that rape or false allegations are of public concern (as opposed to kiss and tells story that wouldn't be)

3. He had his own axe to grind, he was an angry father. He also knew what he was saying was untrue.

4. The Director of Public Prosecutions had personally met Mr de Freitas and told him about the CCTV and text messages, yet he went to the press and said the opposite.

5. There was no urgency. His daughter had died 6 months before. He gave me no prior warning of his press campaign to prevent me speaking out at the same time and putting my side of the story.

6. He knew my side of the story, I told him to stop lying but he kept on lying regardless.

7. He never gave a gist of my side of the story of mentioned CCTV evidence to the press.

8. The tone was factual, as if he had special information that no one else knew.

9. He had ambushed the Director of Public Prosecutions statement, publishing his own article within 24hrs in order to confuse the general public.

Whatever the result of the judgement this was likely to go to court of appeal for a second opinion, this was new territory. Now we just and to wait and see what the outcome is. Fingers crossed...

Royal Courts of Justice