Dr Matthew Garrett v Dr Roy Schestowitz & Anor
Neutral Citation Number [2025] EWHC 3063 (KB)
Out of respect of those involved in the case, I’m just going to quote from the ruling and not make any personal opinion comments.
Para 114
In my judgment, in all these circumstances, the minimum sum necessary to convince a fair-minded bystander of the baselessness of the allegations against him, to vindicate his reputation and restore his standing, and to compensate him for the consequences he has suffered, is £70,000.
Para 115
Dr and Mrs Schestowitz continue to publish and republish the libels. They have no entitlement to do so. This is not a form of freedom of expression which is protected by law. They have published further similar defamatory statements since the commencement of these proceedings. In the absence of any indication that they will voluntarily desist, remove the material objected to, and give satisfactory undertakings not to repeat the same or similar allegations, they face being compelled to do so by means of an injunction enforceable by proceedings for contempt of court.
Para 118
Dr Garrett’s claim in defamation succeeds. He is entitled to the vindication of this judgment, and to the remedies I have indicated. The counterclaim of Dr and Mrs Schestowitz in harassment is dismissed.
Para 119
Dr and Mrs Schestowitz experienced appalling anonymous abuse, threats and harassment online. They reacted by using their websites – well-established, respected and trusted in the free software community, and carrying their own personal authority as free software activists – to blame and upbraid Dr Garrett for being responsible for this, and to vilify him accordingly. They have been unable to establish any recognisable basis in law for doing so. They have advanced no evidence for it; I was shown nothing in these proceedings capable of establishing in a court of law that Dr Garrett was in fact responsible or had anything to do with it. Their own campaign of allegations is not in these circumstances a lawful exercise of free speech, much less an example of investigative journalism. It is unsubstantiated character assassination and it must stop.