Bridgen vs Hancock Deferred AGAIN - Despite Hancock’s Decision Not to Argue His Tweet Was True.

Hancock seeking to evade justice says former MP for North West Leicestershire, as he raises questions about the actions of media list judges who are judicial colleagues of Mr Hancock’s barrister, Aidan Eardley KC.

 

 

Anyone waiting for the next instalment in the long running, publicly funded defamation suit of Matt Hancock by Andrew Bridgen will now have to wait until March. The goalposts were moved not long before Christmas, again, by another judge, following another request for another delay by Matt Hancock.

It has been nearly two years since Mr Bridgen brought the action following Mr Hancock’s question to then Prime Minister Rishi Sunak on the floor of the House of Commons in which he made reference to “disgusting, anti-semitic, anti-vax conspiracy theories that have been promulgated online…”

This followed a tweet in which Mr Bridgen quoted an Israeli doctor he said had told him that harms caused by Covid MRNA injections constituted the worst crime against humanity since the Holocaust.

Apparently reading from a script Mr Sunak replied to Mr Hancock that he was “determined that the scourge of antisemitism is eradicated.”

Mr Hancock tweeted an edited video of the exchange thirty-one minutes later, adding that the conspiracy theories he was referencing had been “spouted by a sitting MP.” His tweet is still up, with over 4.4 million impressions.  

But Mr Bridgen’s claim that the tweet is defamatory is yet to be presented at a trial because, he says, Mr Hancock’s legal team are afraid to have their position tested under cross-examination - preferring to mire the case endlessly in “procedural chicanery” until Mr Bridgen runs out of money to fight it.

A Case Management Conference is the first stage after the issue of a claim and would normally be expected within weeks of the filing but this did not happen because Mr Hancock applied to have the whole claim struck out.

 This application was heard before Mrs Justice Steyn in March 2024 and Mr Bridgen was told parts of his case were “defective” and that he should amend them. Mrs Justice Steyn declined, however, to strike the claim out as not viable.

Mr Hancock then insisted on a preliminary issues hearing. This took place in the summer of 2024 in front of Mrs Justice Collins Rice and the Case Management Conference was finally listed for November 26th.

That has now been postponed AGAIN because Mr Hancock has applied for - and been granted - ANOTHER chance to have the claim thrown out, which has now been listed for 12 March 2025.

 

“Hiding like a child”

Speaking exclusively to Hunt & Gather Mr Bridgen said Mr Hancock is delaying a substantive hearing because he knows that the content of his own defence means he is now bound to lose.

 “He’s not pleaded truth under section 2 of the Defamation Act which means that he is now bound in these proceedings to accept that the tweet was not antisemitic. Obviously he does not ever want that admission put to him in a witness box with the public watching – not least because the transcript it will produce will tend to prove that both he and Mr Sunak misled parliament and should have already corrected the position, according to the Ministerial Code,” Mr Bridgen said.

 “Because of that he is hiding behind another legal argument where the evidence is given by his solicitor not him - like a child hiding behind his mother’s skirt,” Mr Bridgen said.

 

“An insult to the public”

 Describing Mr Hancock’s approach as “lawfare” Mr Bridgen said it is an insult to the thousands of people who have funded his action.

 “My claim is being paid for by hard working members of the public who want to see Hancock in court explaining how he could possibly have thought in January 2023 that the tweet was antisemitic when he now accepts it was not antisemitic” he said.

 “By instructing his lawyers to engage in endless procedural chicanery instead of face my claim he is showing the public the same level of disrespect as he did when he told them they couldn’t hug their families, only to be caught on camera kissing his girlfriend at the office.

“By allowing him endlessly to delay matters I have to wonder what the judges in the Media List are trying to achieve. They all know justice delayed is justice denied.”

Bombshell witness statement

 We can now bring you exclusive access to extracts from a witness statement submitted by Mr Bridgen - in an attempt, he says, to keep the proceedings on track - which raises concerns that the management of the case amounts to evidence of judicial bias.

 Claims at this stage are normally handled by a judge with the rank of Master. A page on the judiciary’s website states “A Master is a judge who at first instance in the High Court deals with all aspects of a claim, from its issue until the trial.”

 But, Mr Bridgen says, the decision to delay his Case Management Conference was made not by the Master who was managing the case but by High Court Judge Rowena Collins-Rice.

 “This contributes to my feeling my case is getting special treatment,” Mr Bridgen’s witness statement says.

 Furthermore, the new strike out claim Mr Hancock has made has ALREADY been allocated to A DIFFERENT judge, Sir Matthew Nicklin.

If the name rings a bell it might be because it was a decision of Sir Nicklin that effectively lead to the jailing of independent journalist Stephen Yaxley-Lennon (aka Tommy Robinson), having banned him by injunction from publishing his documentary Silenced. The film was recommended on Thursday to his followers by Tesla boss Elon Musk, who tweeted: “Free Tommy Robinson!”

Citing an interview he gave to GB News on October 29 2024 in which he praised Mr Yaxley-Lennon’s film Mr Bridgen says it is unlikely Sir Nicklin can avoid a conflict of interest in this case.  

“That film is critical of Judge Nicklin and I amplified that criticism on national television. My work to combat judicial corruption in the Kings Bench Division is a threat to significant judges of that division, and the film Silenced specifically calls into question the integrity of Sir Nicklin,” Mr Bridgen says.

“Where all the normal processes are, it seems, being bypassed, how do I avoid the conclusion that something I do not know about is causing that?” ‘

Furthermore, Mr Bridgen notes in his witness statement that Mr Eardley’s email address - DHCJ.Aidan.Eardley@ejudiciary.net - demonstrates that he himself is a Deputy High Court Judge in the Media and Communications List, as well as being a barrister.

“I understand there is a very small number of media judges, so they must all know each other,” Mr Bridgen says.

‘Change in The Political Weather’

 The witness statement also claims the real reason for MrHancock’s application to delay the Case Management Conference is “a change in the political weather” in the United States with regard to vaccine safety and freedom of speech issues.

 It mentions a US Congressional House Committee report into a campaign to promote Covid 19 vaccines which concludes “..guidance, which the Campaign relied on, went beyond the terms of FDA’s Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) to state, without evidence, that COVID vaccines were highly effective against transmission.”

Mr Bridgen believes the selection by President Trump of Robert Kennedy Junior as his proposed Secretary for Health and Human Services has a bearing on Mr Hancock’s apparent reluctance to argue his case publicly.

 In an interview with the Daily Express in June 2023 Mr Kennedy described Mr Bridgen as “one of the most courageous members of the British Parliament.”

 Mr Bridgen also says in his witness statement that he will be writing to Vice-President JD Vance following the transition in Washington to highlight the attack on him by Mr Sunak, Mr Hancock and the wider Conservative Party as “an unacceptable attack on free speech.”

Mr Hancock, Mr Eardley and all the judges mentioned in this report have been contacted for comment.

The next hearing will take place at London’s High Court on the 12th of March. Anyone wishing to view the hearing remotely is advised to lodge a request with the court office as soon as possible.