Pending submissions that the Defence of justification should be struck out,
(1) Particulars of justification based on a pseudonymous published work of fiction which attributed to C various murders and assaults without giving proper particulars were hopeless, irrespective of the fact that C’s brother had said the book was truthful; C’s brother’s admissions could not stand;
(2) Particulars of an alleged assault based on a statement to police subsequently withdrawn and a section 18 charge not prosecuted could stand as it was still open to D to prove the underlying facts of the assault;
(3) Particulars that C had become involved in a piece of real estate litigation in order to intimidate the claimant into withdrawing, had made anonymous telephone threats and said to the claimant he should be “handed over” and two more particularised threats to murder had the potential to be proved at trial;
(4) Particulars that officers arresting C would not provide their names, that C asked for them or that they arrested C’s mistress were irrelevant, as was the information C used offshore companies to hold property;
(5) “Unsolicited statements” to police could be interpreted as admissions of criminal involvement at trial and “no comment” statements would not be struck out at an interim stage;
(6) The particulars allowed to stand of intimidation could be used to establish the broader notion that C was a crime lord, as could an attack on a crime reporter and threats to the journalist, but fresh particulars that C had killed a man in 1982 and a Mile End doorman, run a collaborative dope import business and tortured a trafficker required greater detail. Passing references to murders nor a reference to an interest in a property used for prostitution could stand. Serious allegations of misconduct must not be pleaded as bare assertion.
(7) The Reynolds plea, in certain regards, consisted of general claims from unidentified sources and was under-particularised. Mere regurgitation of allegations and references to the journalist’s awareness or previous writing was not enough to support a public interest defence.