Allison Pearson sues police chief for libel over social media investigation accused of inciting racial hatred

The case centres on the "natural and ordinary meaning" of various public communications issued after Ms Pearson became the subject of the police inquiry.

A High Court hearing took place on Tuesday, where Mr Justice Chamberlain heard submissions regarding whether statements made by police and media appearances by Mr Hirst constituted defamation against the journalist.

Both the force and Mr Hirst are contesting the claims brought against them.

The investigation had been triggered by the 2023 social media post, which Ms Pearson has since removed from the platform.

Officers arrived at Ms Pearson's home on Remembrance Sunday in November 2024, requesting that she attend a voluntary interview under caution.

Ms Pearson wrote about the visit in a Daily Telegraph column, while the paper also published a news story about it.

Following the police visit, Ms Pearson told GB News how the "shocking" police probe into a so-called "non-crime" showed "thought control" is attempting to "shape morality".

Speaking to Nigel Farage, the journalist claimed: "It was upsetting because I'm a law abiding person and I respect the police. To me, this seemed to be a completely mad overreaction.

"I'm not in the habit of writing anything horrible and inflammatory. If I wrote something that was unwise, I appear to have deleted that tweet.

"I have no memory of what it was, but I still don't think that's a proportionate response".

Essex Police subsequently released a public statement confirming the columnist had been invited for questioning, later updating it to note that the Crown Prosecution Service had reviewed the matter and determined no further action was required.

Mr Hirst separately addressed the situation through multiple channels, penning a piece for Conservative Home and speaking about the issue during an interview on LBC radio.

Ms Pearson maintains that the police statement, the commissioner's written article, and his radio appearance all amounted to libel against her.

The journalist's barrister, Lorna Skinner KC, argued in written submissions that the police request for an interview indicated the matter had progressed well beyond a preliminary inquiry.

"These matters signal that the matter is very far progressed from that of an initial investigation to establish whether or not something had happened - the police are now considering what should be done about that something," Ms Skinner said.

She further contended that the force's expressed concern for proper procedure in relation to potential prosecution implied they had already reached conclusions about the next steps.

Ms Skinner additionally argued that a reference within the police statement to "a large amount of false reporting" was directed specifically at Ms Pearson's own account of events.

Godwin Busuttil, representing Mr Hirst, told the court that the commissioner had refused on at least two occasions during the LBC interview to discuss the case specifically, instead addressing only "broader issues that are raised".

"There is nothing in there which is defamatory of Ms Pearson at any level," Mr Busuttil said.

His written arguments maintained it was "perfectly obvious" that "only an unreasonable listener avid for scandal" would have interpreted Mr Hirst as accusing Ms Pearson of wrongdoing.

Richard Munden, acting for Essex Police, characterised the case as "illogical" in his written submissions, arguing that the statement's reference to an "ongoing investigation" clearly indicated no conclusions had been reached.

Mr Justice Chamberlain will deliver his ruling in written form at a later date.