03/02/2020 Johnson v Steele & Ors [2014] EWHC B24 (QB) (29 October 2014) allegations made. He has done everything he can to make matters worse. It is, therefore, entirely appropriate that there should be in this case an award of aggravated damages, not separately, but as part of the overall compensatory figure. 13. I discussed with Mr. Spooner in the course of his submissions the appropriateness of one award of damages, and it is clear, I think, in the light of the modern authorities - in particular Hayward v Thompson in 1982, summarising the earlier authorities - that it is a matter for the trial judge's discretion where there are multiple libels, whether or not there should be separate awards or one only. It seems to me in this case, from the point of view of common sense and practicality, that the only possible approach is to scoop it all up into one award. 14. Mr. Spooner drew my attention to a number of particular aggravating factors, all of which have validity. For example, there was the fact that Mr. Steele started up what has been called a "copycat mirror site" in the United States two days after the claimant managed to get some of the United Kingdom sites suspended for defamatory publications. In other words, it was an act of defiance and spite, because Mr. Steele thought that if he were to do that he would be beyond the reach of the law in this country. 15. He has continually denied his own authorship and necessitated the obtaining by Mr. Johnson of two Norwich Pharmacal orders in order to trace the identity and origin of these publications. The second and third companies feature regularly in those publications. 16. There was also the creation of fake accounts in Mr. Johnson's name, a particularly distressing feature of the campaign against him, people thinking that he was, in fact, responsible for these publications in some instances. Of course, when people Googled him or his business they came upon this bogus site attributed to him - another plainly aggravating feature of the case. 17. Despite the gravity of the allegations there has been no attempt on Mr. Steele's part to justify or in any way defend the allegations he has made. The only quasi defence he put up from time to time was the suggestion that he was not responsible for publication, and eventually that was demonstrated to be untrue. 18. There was also the feature of a counterclaim in these proceedings making life even more difficult for Mr. Johnson, necessitating the expense and effort of defending that. 19. There was the hiding of computers. Some six computers were involved as far as we know, and some of those were hidden, some were destroyed, and I think two were found in his daughter's shed at one stage; all of this despite warnings in February of this year by Master Leslie at a hearing that it was important that he should co-operate and maintain the availability of those computers. 20. There is of course the trouble and expense to which Mr. Johnson has been put in conducting this litigation, distressing in itself. There were feeble attempts to prevent Mr. Johnson adducing expert evidence pursued before Parker J, and then even before the Court of Appeal. Those attempts got short shrift, but they inevitably added to the stress and worry of this litigation. 21. Another aspect of the conduct of Mr. Steele is the fact that he made false allegations to the police which resulted in Mr. Johnson being arrested. The matter was not proceeded with, but of course that, in itself, was an aggravating and distressing feature which impacted adversely on his own family life, as he explained in the witness box. 22. Damages can never, of course, compensate truly for wrongdoing on this scale, but it is the best that the law can do to provide a remedy. I will discuss in a moment with Mr. Spooner the terms of a suitable injunction, but for the moment I award £70,000 by way of compensatory and aggravated damages. BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2014/B24.html www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2014/B24.html 3/3