BEFORE: HIS HONOUR JUDGE GREGORY LAWRENCE SHERRIFF SCHOOL CLAIMANT. -v-

Transcription

1 THE COUNTY COURT AT COVENTRY Claim No: A00CV560 Much Park Street Coventry CV1 2SN Thursday, 24 th September 2015 BEFORE: HIS HONOUR JUDGE GREGORY LAWRENCE SHERRIFF SCHOOL CLAIMANT -v- MR AMIT MATALIA DEFENDANT MR BENTLEY appeared on behalf of the Claimant MR HYAMS appeared on behalf of the Defendant Transcribed by Cater Walsh Reporting Limited (Official Court Reporters and Audio Transcribers) 1 st Floor, Paddington House, New Road, Kidderminster DY10 1AL Tel: Fax: info@caterwalsh.co.uk And Transcription Suite, 3 Beacon Road, Billinge, Wigan WN5 7HE Tel & Fax: mel@caterwalsh.co.uk JUDGMENT APPROVED

2 Thursday, 24 th September 2015 JUDGE GREGORY: 1. On 13 th November 2014 the Lawrence Sherriff School Academy Trust, to which I shall refer as the school, issued proceedings against Mr Amit Matalia seeking an injunction preventing harassment of its staff and governors under section 3 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, to which I shall refer as the Act. That claim has been resisted by Mr Matalia and has come before me for trial. It has taken three days, and today is the fourth day reserved for speeches and judgment. 2. I start with the law. Section 1 of the Act prohibits harassment, as described in sub-sections 1 and 1(a). The claim is based upon section 1, 1(a), which provides as follows: A person must not pursue a course of conduct (a) which involves harassment of two or more persons; (b) which he knows or ought to know involves harassment of those persons; (c) by which he intends to persuade any person: (1) not to do something that he is entitled or required to do or: (2) to do something that he is not under any obligation to do. Section 1.2 of the Act provides that: Someone ought to know that his conduct amounts to or involves harassment of another if a reasonable person in possession of the same information would think that it did. 3. For the claim to succeed each of the elements of section 1.1(a) must be satisfied. The first of these is that Mr Matalia has pursued a course of conduct which involves harassment of two or more persons. The fact of harassment is, therefore, the foundation of the claim. 4. Section 7.2 of the Act provides that: Harassment of an individual includes conduct alarming the person or causing the person distress. 5. Every harassment case is, of course, fact specific, and facts always have to be assessed in their context. However, considerable authoritative guidance with regard to the nature of conduct that can amount to harassment is available. In particular, in Majrowski v Guy s & St Thomas NHS Trust [2007] 1 App Cas 224 Lord Nicholls stated as follows: The courts will have in mind that irritations, annoyances and even a measure of upset arise at times in everybody s dealings with other people. Courts are well able to recognise the boundary between

3 conduct which is unattractive, even unreasonable, and conduct which is oppressive and unacceptable. To cross the boundary from the regrettable to the unacceptable the misconduct must be of an order which would sustain criminal liability under section In Willoughby v Hayes [2013] UKSC 17 Lord Sumption provided the following guidance upon the meaning of harassment: It is an ordinary English word, with a well understood meaning. Harassment is a persistent and deliberate course of unreasonable and oppressive conduct, which is calculated to, and does, cause the person alarm, fear or distress. He also cited, with approval, the following dictum of Lord Nicholls in Majrowski above: A large proportion of those engaged in this kind of persistent and deliberate course of targeted oppression, with which the Act is concerned, will in the nature of things being obsessives and cranks, who will commonly believe themselves to be entitled to act as they do. 7. Harassment can take various forms. At paragraph 66 of her speech in Majrowski Baroness Hale stated as follows: All sorts of conduct may amount to harassment. It includes alarming a person or causing her distress, but conduct might be harassment even if no alarm or distress were, in fact, caused. A great deal is left to the wisdom of the courts to draw sensible lines between the banter and badinage of life and genuinely offensive and unacceptable behaviour. Harassment may occur face to face or through conduct in the presence of the person being harassed. It can also occur through written communications either directly to the victim or to third parties. So much is apparent from Plevelil v Director of Public Prosecutions [2014] EWHC 736. In this case a divisional court upheld a conviction for harassment based upon the sending of eight faxes to the General Medical Council by the defendant about his son-in-law, Dr Thomas. Those faxes contained a variety of false and malicious allegations, some of criminal conduct. The Crown Court had been satisfied to the criminal standard that the appellant s conduct targeted an individual and was calculated to cause him distress and to discredit him with his professional body. As such, it regarded his conduct as oppressive and unreasonable so as to amount to harassment. The divisional court upheld that conclusion. 8. Similarly, in Ferguson v British Gas Trading Limited [2010] 1 WLR 785 the Court of Appeal confirmed that:

4 Demands for payment of a claimed gas bill sent by the defendant to the claimant over a period of five months, with threats of disconnection and legal action, could amount to harassment, those demands being sent by documentation generated by a computer. 9. Mr Hyams, counsel for Mr Matalia, also referred me to a passage from the judgment of Mrs Justice Elizabeth Lang in Merlin Entertainment v Cave (2004) EWHC 3036 QB. At paragraph 56 of her judgment she stated as follows: Merlin is now a Plc. Its officers, whether its board or its management, are the means by which it carries out its operations. An almost inevitable consequence of occupying a position of responsibility in a Plc, the business of which affects many members of the public, is that at times a times a person will be exposed to robust, and, occasionally, upsetting criticism. Its officers should, of course, be protected from real harassment, but they are not immune from criticism, even if that is misguided and intemperate. If such criticism is defamatory the remedy is a claim in defamation. If such a claim succeeds the level of damages will reflect the distress caused by the defamation. 10. Mr Hyams principal argument in the present case is as follows: If the conduct of Mr Matalia is properly subject to criticism it is, at worst, conduct that could be said to be misguided and intemperate. Insofar as it might involve publicising or publishing statements, which are untrue and defamatory, the appropriate remedy is in defamation. He does not seek to argue that if statements do amount to defamation they cannot also amount to harassment, that would plainly be wrong, but it is an argument put forward to illustrate the need to cross a particular boundary line for conduct to move from the misguided and the intemperate to the oppressive and unacceptable so as to amount to harassment. 11. Mr Hyams has also assisted me further by bringing my attention to the decision of Mr Justice Simon in Dowson & Others v Chief Constable of Northumbria Police [2010] EWHC In this case His Lordship cited from the judgment of Lord Justice Pill in R v Curtis [2010] EWCA the following: To harass, as defined in the Concise Oxford Dictionary tenth edition, is to: torment by subjecting to constant interference or intimidation.. The conduct must be unacceptable to a degree which would sustain criminal liability and also must be oppressive. He went on to summarise the elements needed to be established for a claim of harassment to succeed at page 142 of his judgment as follows: There must be conduct which occurs on at least two occasions; (2) which is targeted at the claimant; (3) which is calculated in an objective sense, which means likely, to cause alarm or distress, and which is objectively judged to be oppressive and unacceptable. What is oppressive and unacceptable? It may depend on the social or working context in which the comment occurs. A line is to be drawn between conduct which is unattractive and unreasonable and conduct

5 which has been described in various ways, torment of a victim, of an order which would sustain criminal liability. Mr Hyams has also referred me to Curtis. I do not think I need to refer to that case any further than the citation of Lord Justice Pill, which I have already rehearsed. 12. I turn now to the facts of this case. The school is a selective grammar school in Rugby, which converted to academy status on 1 st September The governing body employs the staff and is responsible for the day-to-day management of the school premises. Dr Peter Kent is the head teacher, and has been for fifteen years. Mr Mike Hickling is an assistant head teacher. Mr Anthony Thomas is the Chair of governors, and has been for some eight years. 13. Mr Matalia s eldest son joined the school, aged 11, in September He is still a pupil at the school. The genesis for this case is a residential school trip to Wales, in which Mr Matalia s son took part, in July In the course of that trip he shared a tent with three other boys. Two of those other boys made allegations of sexual misconduct against him. That led to the involvement of the police and Warwickshire County Council s safeguarding service. No criminal prosecution was pursued. 14. The school, through a teacher called Mrs Wright, investigated the matter. That investigation gave rise to the documents to be found in trial bundle 1 at pages 54 to 61. Mr Matalia is utterly convinced that the allegations against his son were false and malicious. He believed that his son had been seriously wronged, and determined to right that wrong. I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that it is this belief, coupled with a fanatical determination to clear his son s name, as he has put it, that caused to embark upon the course of conduct that has given rise to this litigation. 15. The case for the school is that the conduct of Mr Matalia involved harassment of at least two individuals, namely Dr Kent and Mr Hickling, with the initial intent of persuading the school to take steps, which it was not obliged to do, in relation to the school trip incident and the other boys involved in it. That intent broadened to including the taking of disciplinary action against school staff and/or removing from office senior members of staff and school governors, when the school was not obliged to do any of that. 16. The form which the alleged harassment took is said to have included: (1) face to face behaviour in two meetings; (2) written communications to Dr Kent and third parties, including Mr Patrick Derham, a school governor and then head teacher of Rugby School, also to the local authority, to the solicitors acting for the school, to other grammar schools, and to government agencies. It also included postings upon websites controlled by Mr Matalia.

6 17. Mr Bentley on behalf of the school has identified twenty-eight such matters, as set out in the Scott schedule, which starts at page 30 of trial bundle 1 and extends to page 41. Two of these matters were meetings, seventeen s or letters. There were five website postings and three other documents. 18. Complaint is made about what was said, and the manner of the defendant as going to establish harassment. I say from the outset that the telephone call upon which reliance has been made to Mrs Jacqui Harbourne, I think it was, a parent governor, did not in my view contain any comment from Mr Matalia which could amount to harassment in this case. 19. There is no doubt that the s relied upon emanated from Mr Matalia and the documents were created by him. So much is apparent from the admissions that he has made on the Scott schedule and elsewhere. His case is that whatever he said or did could not constitute harassment. He maintains that insofar as he made unsavoury personal allegations, whilst they might constitute defamation, if untrue, they do not constitute harassment. 20. Mr Hyams has analysed the communications and documents relied upon by the school. He contents that, at worst, on occasion Mr Matalia has acted as a disgruntled parent, or spoken strongly as an angry person might have done, or, at worst, been guilty of defamation. He contends that nothing that has been said or done by Mr Matalia could constitute harassment. He further submitted that comments in relation to the school s conduct in respect of Mr Matalia s younger son, to which I will refer later, simply reflect the truth. Mr Hyams has also argued that account has to be taken of Mr Matalia s Article 10 Convention Right of free speech. 21. I have read all of the matters relied upon by the school in this case, but I do not propose to rehearse the contents of all of them. In many cases the things said by Mr Matalia are reflected in other documents, and it is not necessary to set them all out. To do so would become unnecessarily repetitive and tedious. It is, of course, necessary to have regard to the contents of the documents. However, they also have to be put in the context of Mr Matalia s overall behaviour and as part of a course of conduct. 22. Whilst a grievance may have a justifiable foundation, that does not entitle the holder of it to engage in the harassment of those whom he regards as responsible for it. Nor can the right of free speech be used as a cloak for verbal harassment. Indeed, such conduct would amount to an abuse of that right. In my judgment Mr Matalia s conduct did involve a course of conduct, and has to be assessed as a course of conduct in the context of his purpose in engaging upon it, or, I should say, his purposes. That assessment is bound to take into account what the court has learned of Mr Matalia in the course of this trial, through the manner in which he gave evidence, as well as the content of that evidence.

7 23. I find on the balance of probabilities that Mr Matalia demonstrated himself to be utterly convinced of the correctness of his own views and incapable of perceiving any legitimate criticism of anything that he has done or said. Everything in his view was entirely justified. It is not easy through the words of this judgment to convey just how fixed in his views, how intransigent and how unreasonable he is. So, for example, he saw nothing inappropriate in writing to a 13 year old boy, threatening him with an action for defamation and criminal proceedings. 24. Also, he attended a meeting with Mr Hickling, and later hinted to Dr Kent that he had clandestinely videoed it through a camera in a pen. He was not prepared to be straightforward to Dr Kent about whether he had, in fact, recorded it. In his evidence, after considerable prevarication, he stated that he had recorded the meeting, but accidentally. He also stated that he was unable to disclose the recording for technical reasons. I do not accept that he told the truth in respect of either of these matters. 25. Asked, in January 2013, to respond to correspondence within ten days with a view to arrange a meeting with governors, his response was that the earliest date that he was available was 22 nd December 2015, nearly three years later, at which time the meeting would last four days, i.e. over the Christmas period, because he would present evidence, which will take days to prepare and get through. (See page 120 of trial bundle 1) 26. When writing to Mr Thomas, and the parent of the child against whom he threatened proceedings, he included reference to irrelevant personal information. In his evidence he stated that he researches everybody that he encounters, and considered this common practice. I am satisfied that his reason for utilising irrelevant personal information was to unsettle and discomfort the recipients of his communications. He even tried this approach with the court after I had rejected an application to recuse myself. It had no effect upon me, and I take no heed of it in reaching my decision. 27. I turn to the issue involving Mr Matalia s younger son. Places are offered at the school to potential pupils who pass the eleven-plus entrance exam and fulfil a requirement to reside in the school s catchment area. In May 2013 Dr Kent learned from Mr Taylor, of Warwickshire County Council s admissions office, that an offer of a place had been made to a child for entry in September 2013, whose out of catchment area parent had apparently used a false address to secure the offer. At that time the child was anonymised and Dr Kent had no idea of who the child was or who the parent was. 28. It was decided to withdraw the offer, and as a consequence not to send a year 7 pack. The reasoning behind this is set out in Mr Thomas s letter of 6 th June 2013 at page 315 of the trial bundle. It is not necessary for me to read it out. It turned out that the child in question was Mr Matalia s younger son, Shavlock. He sought to appeal the withdrawal of the offer. The school refused to entertain the appeal. Mr Matalia appealed to an

8 independent appeal panel, which heard the matter on 24 th November The appeal succeeded upon the basis that the school had failed to comply with paragraph 4(c) of the school admission appeals code. 29. If a school refuses an application for a place then under the code an applicant has a right of appeal. The school contended that it did not refuse a place but chose to reject the application. The panel concluded that under the code a school could only allow or refuse an application. It could not reject one. Consequently, an appeal should have been entertained. The panel further considered that had there been an appeal it would have been allowed and a place offered; consequently, it directed that an offer of a place be made available for Shavlack. That was done, but he chose not to take it up. 30. It is of note that in pursing his appeal Mr Matalia made strident allegations of racial discrimination against the school. The panel found no evidence to support this allegation and noted that it was merely the validity of the address that was in issue. (See generally the letter of 24 th November 2014 to Mr Matalia from Deborah Laken, the secretary to the appeal panel, to be found at pages 398 to 401 of the trial bundle) 31. In pursuing the appeal process Mr Matalia produced lengthy documents. The evidence of Mr Thomas about this process is to be found at paragraphs 22 to 24 of his witness statement at page 241 of the trial bundle. That evidence was as follows: Throughout the admission appeal period, including after the school had converted to an academy, Mr Matalia has sought to put continued and unrelenting pressure on the staff of the school regarding the appeal. This included submitting requests for information, which he already had in his possession as they had been submitted to the appeal panel, or was not entitled to receive. These actions appeared to have been aimed at employees of the school, to intimidate the staff and make the governors office concede the appeal without going through the appeal process, something which they were not required to do. On 6 th February 2014 Mr Matalia submitted an extensive document in response to the admissions consultation, which, worryingly, included various allegations of racial discrimination against Asian students in favour of Caucasian students. Such allegations are unfounded and unwarranted, and I continued to be concerned that Mr Matalia was using the admissions consultation process as a way of pursuing his allegations against the school, as his repeated allegations against Mr Hickling, assistant head, Dr Kent, head teacher and governors. Further s were received containing similar or identical wording to that used by Mr Matalia, and was a further attempt by Mr Matalia to influence the outcome of the admissions consultation through these s.

9 32. I found Mr Thomas to be an impressive, honest, accurate and reliable witness. I accept his evidence in these paragraphs of his witness statement insofar as it deals with the facts of the case. Furthermore, insofar as it amounts to comment, I consider that it amounts to an accurate, fair assessment of Mr Matalia s behaviour. This matter, of course, in relation to his younger son arose months after Mr Matalia had embarked upon the course of conduct that has given rise to this claim. However, it became an important feature of the case and was grist to his mill. 33. I turn now to the conduct of Mr Matalia, which has given rise to this claim. It started with him sending an to Mr Hickling setting out allegations of assault and abuse directed towards his son by other pupils. The concluded with a number of demands as follows: I expect the child s mother to be contacted and provided with the details of her son s behaviour and physical assaults her son had been involved in, and asked to comment on them. You should also inform her that this is going to become a police matter in regard to assault, harassment, slander and libel. (See page 70 of the trial bundle) The demands in this letter were intemperate to the extent of shocking in the light of the threats that he demanded be communicated to the mother of a 12 year old child. 34. The response of the school was to arrange for a meeting between Mr Matalia and Mr Hickling, attended also by another teacher, Mr Bennett. The purpose of the meeting, according to Mr Hickling, was to discuss the welfare and wellbeing of Mr Matalia s son. The meeting did not go well. Immediately afterwards Mr Matalia embarked upon a course of conduct which involved the denigration of, initially, Mr Hickling and subsequently Dr Kent and Mr Anthony Thomas, the Chair of governors, and the school as an institution. 35. The denigration of Dr Kent started after a meeting with him and Mr Thomas on 18 th October 2012, which was arranged as a consequence of his complaints about Mr Hickling. Initially, his purpose was to secure what he regarded as an adequate investigation of the allegations made against his son. In an to Dr Kent, sent at 5.50pm on the day of his meeting with Mr Hickling, he stated as follows: 36. Subsequently: I do not think Mr Hickling is a fit and proper person to deal with child protection concerns in relation to my son, never mind being assistant head. Take this as a formal complaint against him, and investigate the incident. This matter will drag on and on until the school discloses the allegations in detail and provides information about its investigations and its conclusion. One cannot move forward until the allegations are

10 fully investigated and dealt with. The allegations have not been withdrawn. I am surprised the school has not contacted all parents to discuss how they think the allegations should be investigated and resolved. The school should inform all parents that since the children have not made an official complaint to the police, the police couldn t investigate. As the allegations have not been withdrawn the school now needs to investigate. He went on to say that the school needed to re-interview the children in question. That is page 73 of the bundle. 37. He went on to say on page 74: Unless there is a full investigation a line cannot be drawn under these incidents. He concluded by saying: Should I contact the press, informing them how an assistant head in charge with child protection concerns at LSS thinks it acceptable to repeatedly point his fingers in anger at a parent complaining about bullying with another deputy head watching? What would you do in my situation? 38. On 18 th October, in an sent that day to Mr Barnett after his meeting with Dr Kent, on the same day he stated as follows, and I turn to pages 89 and 90 of the trial bundle: Dr Kent refuses to provide me with a copy of the actual allegations against my son, or to me, citing the Data Protection Act. How can any investigation be undertaken without a right to reply? Unfortunately, a line cannot be drawn under this saga until the two boys admit they fabricated a story and provide a signed admission to me, which would then be lodged with the school, Warwickshire Child Protection and (inaudible word) police. This is closure. I feel the board of governors of LSS need to meet to discuss the situation. 39. After Mr Matalia s meetings with, first, Mr Hickling and then Dr Kent his purpose broadened to include the disciplining and/or dismissal of both of them. By his conduct directed towards those individuals he was plainly seeking to pressure the school into doing something, which it was not obliged to do. 40. In the course of the trial I have heard evidence from Mr Hickling, Dr Kent, Mr Thomas and, at some length, Mr Matalia. Much of the evidence is, of course, contained in the documents. However, there are significant conflicts of evidence with regard to the two meeting to which I have referred. Mr Hickling s account of the meeting of 2 nd October 2012 is to be found at paragraphs 3 to 5 of his witness statement, which is at page 231 of the trial bundle. He said this: During this meeting Mr Matalia was verbally aggressive and personally insulting, and clearly behaving in a very unusual, agitated, physical manner. Towards the end of the meeting he stated that the

11 boys who had accused his son were very intelligent, and he took his hat off to them. He then stated that they had realised that they could make a claim, ruin his son s reputation and then retract their accusations without punishment. He then stated that his son had learned a lesson and he could, in turn, accuse a member of staff of doing something, ruin their reputation and then get away with it. 41. After making this statement, a second time, the meeting was concluded. It was quite clear that after this meeting my very experienced colleague, Mr Bennett had been deeply shaken by the incident, and, indeed, the meeting was far from pleasant. Since this meeting Mr Matalia has taken every possible action to do exactly what he said by attempting to denigrate the school, governors and members of the leadership team, as well as organisations associated with the school, such as Durham University and Warwickshire County Council. 42. In the course of his oral evidence to me Mr Hickling told me that he had instructed his PA to inform Mr Matalia that the purpose of the meeting was to discuss his son s pastoral welfare and that he wished to assure him that he would get the best possible care. However, he said that Mr Matalia was taken up with making allegations of bullying against his son and wanted to see the school s bullying policy. Mr Hickling referred him to the school s website. He described Mr Matalia becoming very aggressive and swearing. Mr Matalia was asked to calm down by Mr Barnett, but chose to abuse Mr Hickling, accusing him of being incompetent, accusing him of being worthless and not fit for purpose; this, apparently, in the context of the bullying policy not being on the website. 43. Mr Hickling told me that Mr Matalia repeatedly wagged his finger at him. He, after some thirty minutes of abuse, returned the gesture. Mr Matalia then complained, and Mr Hickling apologised for doing it back. He was then, he said, subjected to further abuse. He tried to bring the meeting to a close, but he said it was difficult because Mr Matalia was like train going constantly. He also hinted that he would encourage his son to make false allegations against us. 44. This meeting had a profound effect upon Mr Hickling. He told me that he had never experienced anything like it in seventeen years of teaching, that he was shocked and fearful of what Mr Matalia would do next. As to Mr Barnett, he was, according to Mr Hickling, physically shaking. In his evidence, Mr Matalia has denied that he behaved aggressively towards Mr Hickling at all, that he swore at him at all, or that he engaged in any finger pointing at him. 45. He has, further, denied that he said that he would encourage his son to make false allegations, whether by hint or otherwise. He asserted in the course of his evidence that he feared physical assault by Mr Hickling. I found this last assertion by Mr Matalia to be absurd. Mr Hickling

12 presented as a mild mannered, self-effacing man. I do not believe that he did anything to give Mr Matalia an honest belief that he might be assaulted. 46. Mr Hyams on behalf of Mr Matalia has attacked the veracity of Mr Hickling by reason of late disclosure of a note of a meeting made by Mr Hickling, the contents of which, he argued, suggested that it had been written after sight of Mr Matalia s of 2 nd October 2012, and not five minutes after the meeting, as stated by Mr Hickling. Even if Mr Hickling did get the timing of the making of the note wrong I would not regard that as a good reason to prefer the evidence of Mr Matalia. Further, I am not in the least surprised that after pointing his finger at Mr Matalia he apologised for doing so. It is not at all remarkable, in my view, that confronted with such unpleasantness and aggression his instinct as a teacher, apart from his own nature, was an attempt to mollify Mr Matalia. 47. In that attempt he was wholly unsuccessful, for Mr Matalia proceeded to send a lengthy and aggressively worded to Dr Kent, to which I have already referred, in which he: (1) alleged that Mr Hickling was guilty of gross misconduct; (2) criticised him as not being a fit and proper person to deal with child protection; (3) threatened that if his demands were not met the matter would drag on and on; (4) made a veiled threat to involve the press. In this Mr Matalia reported that Mr Hickling had said that if someone was aggressive to him, he will be aggressive back. When crossexamined he could not see that this comment supported Mr Hickling s account that the finger pointing was instigated by Mr Matalia himself. 48. I have already referred to two matters in respect of which I consider that Mr Matalia was untruthful. In his evidence he came over as prepared to prevaricate, particularly when confronted with difficult questions, and to dispute any matter at length. An example is this: When asked whether he had ed the school, under a pseudonym, complaining about the merit system his response was as follows: Which is this? He was asked whether he did or did not. He responded that there were a number of people. He was asked again: Did you the school to complain about the merit system? His response was: I Then he paused and said, may have, yes. 49. At this point I intervened, asking him this question: You mean you did? His reply was this: It depends what the letter s about, what the context of the letter is. He was further questioned. He finally admitted that he had, indeed, written a letter under somebody else s name to complain about the merit system. It was as a result of exchanges such as this that Mr Matalia s evidence took so long. This was an unedifying spectacle. 50. I have been referred to the transcript of the judgment of Mr Justice Newey in Warwickshire County Council v Matalia, in which he found Mr Matalia had lied in the course of proceedings and falsified documentation to support his case. These findings do not mean that Mr Matalia has been in any way untruthful in the proceedings before me. The findings that I make

13 in these proceedings are, and must be, firmly grounded in the evidence in this case and uninfluenced by the findings of another judge in another case. 51. Mr Hickling was, in my view, a reasonable, restrained and temperate man. I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that when he gave evidence he was trying to be accurate and to assist the court. I am also satisfied that he was a reliable witness. In contrast, Mr Matalia s purpose in the manner in which he gave evidence was to promote his own views. Also, he demonstrated a deeply unreasonable refusal to acknowledge that anything that he had said or done could reasonably be criticised. He was more than willing to prevaricate and obfuscate when cross-examined upon matters in particular that did not assist him. He was not a witness upon whom the court could rely to give either an accurate or a truthful account of matters. All in all, on the balance of probabilities I prefer the evidence of Mr Hickling to that of Mr Matalia. 52. Mr Hyams has argued that upon the basis of Mr Hickling s account of the meeting what occurred was merely an angry parent saying some strong things, and did not amount to harassment. I disagree. Mr Hickling stated that he was subjected to a tirade of abuse lasting some thirty minutes, from a man who was aggressive and threatening. He was left fearful of false allegations of misconduct being made against him and other members of staff. His colleague was left physically shaking, and he was left shocked. Such conduct on the part of Mr Matalia was, in my view, oppressive, unreasonable, offensive and unacceptable. It was not merely an angry parent. It was a parent with an agenda, determined to bend the school to his will. 53. Further, I am satisfied that Mr Matalia knew very well what he was doing. He is no fool. He is a calculating man. He acted in the way that he did to achieve what he wanted. His conduct was, in my view, deliberate and purposeful. He must have known that it had amounted to harassment of the person whom he was confronting, and he must have known, equally, that that was the effect that his letters, s and other documents would have. If he did not, a reasonable person would in my judgment have done so within the meaning of section 1.2 of the Act. 54. After Dr Kent had received Mr Matalia s of 2 nd October, he received another on 5 th October. That is page 80 in the bundle. It is also referred to in the Scott schedule at item 4. In this Mr Matalia made allegations against children at the school, threatening police action, and stating that there would be no solution unless the school did what he asked. 55. On 18 th October Mr Matalia attended a meeting with Dr Kent and Mr Thomas. The evidence given by Dr Kent about that meeting is to be found at 47 of the trial bundle, paragraphs 19 to 21 of his witness statement. He said this:

14 The meeting with the defendant took place on 18 th October, which I attended with the Chair of governors, the deputy head and my secretary, who took minutes. Within that meeting the defendant repeated the allegations against individual children, and also made complaints against other aspects of the school, including that it had a corrupt merit system. I tried to reassure the defendant that when LEA allegations are made they are investigated and followed up fully. Unfortunately, the defendant did not appear to accept this and I repeatedly had to ask him to change his tone and refrain from shouting. Within the meeting the defendant, again, targeted his allegations towards Mr Hickling, including demanding that he resign. The deputy head teacher made it clear that she was particularly concerned with how much contempt the defendant was expressing for Mr Hickling. During the meeting the defendant also remarked that it was possible to record conversations on a pen. I asked the defendant to confirm whether he was recording this meeting, to which he indicated that he was not, but he would not confirm whether he had recorded the meeting with Mr Hickling. The defendant also indicated that any recording from that meeting may be disclosed to the press. I was extremely concerned that my staff members may have been subject to covert recording when they had engaged in a meeting in good faith to seek to resolve the defendant s concerns in relation to his son. I should add that prior to this meeting Dr Kent had been informed by both Mr Hickling and Mr Barnett that they felt the defendant s behaviour was threatening and offensive towards them. 56. Mr Thomas gave evidence with regard to why the meeting with Dr Kent came about and what took place. It is to be found at paragraphs 3 to 7 of his witness statement at page 237 of the trial bundle. His account of the meeting is as follows: During the meeting between the assistant heads the prospect of false allegations being made against staff had been raised. Given the serious nature of the parents concerns it was agreed that following advice from the LEA Mr Matalia should be invited to meet with the head, deputy head and myself to address his concerns. On 18 th October 2012 the meeting took place in school, during which we attempted to communicate to Mr Matalia that the school had investigated the allegations, and the school had to be fair to all involved in any allegations and considered all aspects of the case. Mr Matalia made it clear that he was expecting students to be suspended. He was unwilling to accept that the investigations had not substantiated his allegations. During Mr Matalia s heated assertions Dr Kent repeatedly had to ask him not to shout. I was very concerned by Mr Matalia s comments that he would recommend students make false allegations, and that he would regard it as sensible for students to do so. Mr Matalia s comments appeared to be aimed at intimidating the school into re-opening this investigation and punishing students, although such action was not warranted. Similarly, he s threatened to go to the

15 media with a recording of the meeting with the assistant heads, and appeared to be trying to force the school into taking action against people, where investigation had shown this was not warranted. 57. Mr Matalia denied when questioned that he had acted aggressively and had been repeatedly asked by Dr Kent not to shout. He denied inferring that pupils should be prepared to make false allegations against teachers. When it was put to him that he was intending to intimidate the school into re-opening the investigation he quibbled, saying that he wasn t aware that the investigation had been closed. 58. I found Dr Kent and Mr Thomas to be honest and reliable witnesses. I was particularly impressed by the following passage of evidence given by Mr Thomas, who, in his evidence was plainly supportive of Dr Kent. What he said in cross-examination was this, and I accept it as a patently truthful passage of evidence: During the course of the meeting Mr Matalia said he would take legal action against a 13 year old, which I thought was reprehensible. I said he needed to park his tanks and move on, and there was no merit in threatening 13 year old children, but he sent a pre-action protocol letter for defamation to a 13 year old child. Mr Thomas was plainly appalled by this behaviour, and reasonably so in my view. Mr Thomas was cross-examined about the contents of the letter to Mr Derham. It was put to him that it did not involve harassment. He asserted that it did, but of course that is a matter for me. 59. What followed on from these meetings was a series of s making deeply offensive allegations and remarks directed primarily at Dr Kent and Mr Hickling, but also the school as an institution. He also published similar material on a number of websites. Insofar as he disputed responsibility for any of the relevant websites and relied upon coincidence due to other dissatisfied parents, I reject his evidence. Cross-examined about the allegations and demands that he made, he asserted that everything he had done was in his view very reasonable and justified. 60. On 18 th January 2013 he sent a letter to the school s solicitor in which he stated as follows: I want the Hickling situation in writing so I can send a copy to the Secretary of State for Education and the press, coupled with my evidence, to demonstrate the attitude and behaviour of the deputy and the degree of dishonesty at the top management. 61. This, he admitted in cross-examination as follows: I wanted to get the school to suspend the boys. That was his admitted purpose at first. He justified his comment about Mr Hickling with this response: Clearly, he is dishonest.

16 62. With regard to Dr Kent, he stated this when cross-examined: I believe Dr Kent is a vindictive man, who deliberately did as much damage to my son s education. When he made this allegation he displayed enormous aggression. It was grossly, in my view, unfair and without any evidential foundation whatsoever. When I asked him if he really meant what he said his response was as follows: This is my real honest view of Dr Kent. He should go to the High Court, but he won t. This comment was a reference to his oft expressed wish that Dr Kent should sue him for defamation in response to allegations of blatant racism that he had published about him on a website. He then added, for good measure: Something must be mentally wrong with Dr Kent. It s a joke. 63. Mr Matalia admitted when cross-examined that he wanted the school to take disciplinary action against both Mr Hickling and Dr Kent. The means that he adopted to secure that aim was to vilify and denigrate them both personally and professionally through s, through letters, often of great length, whether to the school, to governors, to other heads, to government institutions. He also published deeply wounding allegations against them on a number of websites. 64. His campaign against Dr Kent started with a letter to him headed Formal Complaint. It is dated 18 th December In it he stated that Dr Kent was engaged in a cover-up and risking the reputation of Mr Hickling by forcing him to make external complaints about him. This letter led Dr Kent to believe that his concern was to pursue a vendetta against the school and individuals in it, including himself. 65. I should have made reference to a letter that he wrote on 19 th October 2012 to an individual governor of the school, alleging that Mr Hickling was arrogant and offensive and suggesting that he was guilty of conduct amounting to gross misconduct. 66. On 18 th January 2013 Mr Matalia wrote to the school s solicitor. This is referred to at paragraph 32 of Dr Kent s report. In the letter he accused the head and deputy head of dishonesty and he threatened to publicise those allegations. On 3 rd February 2013 he sent an to the school s solicitor, again, accusing the head and deputy head of dishonesty. On 13 th February he sent an to Mrs Wright, making personal allegations against Dr Kent and accusing him of not being man enough to put it in writing, to put his name to it. 67. According to Dr Kent, between April 2013 and November 2013 the defendant continued to correspond with the school, repeating his complaints on the same issues. By then, his allegations included racial discrimination. The first arose as follows: The governors decision to withdraw the offer of a place to Mr Matalia s son was made at a governors meeting during the morning of 16 th July At 10.31pm that day Mr Matalia had sent an

17 making a complaint of racial discrimination in relation to this decision. 68. In a later to Warwickshire County Council he stated as follows: The withdrawal of my son s place was unlawful and only happened after I had made a formal complaint of discrimination and assault in relation to my elder son to the head of LSS. The withdrawal, after 4.5 months, was a deliberately vindictive and discriminatory act, orchestrated to cause maximum damage to my younger son. He knew when he sent this how misleading this was but, nevertheless, continued to repeat like allegations and subsequent publications and correspondence. 69. On 26 th July he sent an to Warwickshire County Council, which included allegations that the head had been deliberately vindictive and discriminatory. On 12 th August he sent an to the school s solicitor, threatening to subject governors to humiliation via court action. 70. Mr Matalia began publicising his allegations on websites during the autumn of These allegations included assertions of racism, victimisation and unlawful action against the head teacher and Chair of governors. 71. In February 2014 Mr Matalia sent a nine-page letter to the school with regard to a consultation paper upon admission arrangements, suggesting reserving places for children from low income families. In it, he made these allegations: that the head teacher and Chair of governors were party to blatant racism; that there had been bogus claims that staff feared for their safety, and such staff members must require psychological evaluation; that the head teacher and governors should resign or be sacked; that the meeting with Mr Hickling was recorded on video. 72. Following receipt of that document, on 6 th February the school received four further responses on 9 th February and 10 th February. The tone, language and content of these documents are all similar to Mr Matalia s letter. Although these documents were sent under different names, bearing in mind Mr Matalia s admitted use of a false name for correspondence, I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that they emanated from him. 73. In March 2014 Mr Matalia ed all grammar schools in Warwickshire, encouraging them to disassociate their schools from the Claimant school until Dr Kent resigned. He stated in this that Dr Kent was not a man of honour or integrity. 74. Mr Matalia created a website with the domain identity: He had found out that this domain name was available and had acquired it. The domain name suggests an official connection with the school. I am satisfied and find on the balance

18 of probabilities that his purpose in acquiring it was mischief making in furtherance of his campaign. 75. In March 2014 Dr Kent became aware of it. He deals with this at paragraph 46 of his witness statement: In June 2014 Mr Matalia made a complaint to the office of the school s adjudicator in relation to the school s admission arrangements. Again, he used this as an opportunity to denigrate Dr Kent, saying he was not a man of honour, dignity or honesty, and a man who cannot be trusted. He, again, referred to resolution by court process with national press reporting, and concluded with this peroration: The head is the most dishonest and corrupt head I have ever had the displeasure of meeting. He and the governors simply cannot be trusted to obey the law. 76. In July 2014, in his seventeen-page submission for the school place appeal, Mr Matalia included the following matters: There will be media pressure for the resignation of the head teacher and Chair of governors; that if his son was not admitted to school his animosity would increase and extend beyond the time his children leave the school, and would not end when they finish their education; that the school should accept that the school place was unlawfully withdrawn and paying 17,000 per year. 77. In a letter dated 15 th July the Defendant wrote to the Chair of governors, threatening to initiate an action for misfeasance in public office against the school governors. 78. From time to time, Mr Matalia updated his websites to make allegations of misconduct by Dr Kent and Mr Thomas. Dr Kent became aware of this in September On 16 th October he came aware that the websites had been further updated to include personal information concerning himself and others. This included his date of birth. When giving evidence Dr Kent stated that the continued updating of the website was maintaining his opportunity to make deeply upsetting and deeply hurtful comments. 79. In his evidence Dr Kent states that he regarded the language of Mr Matalia s communications as highly personalised and aggressive, such that it caused his considerable concern and distress. He was, he said, very distressed by the allegations against him. When cross-examined about his response he stated as follows: I was very concerned about the violence of his language, so concerned that I telephoned my wife and told her to ensure that the doors were locked. To be frank, I felt threatening. Those things are not in the past. He said they will not stop. My concern for my family continues. Violence in language can lead to further steps. I feel threatened, uneasy and anxious.

19 80. Having seen Mr Matalia, at length, in the witness box, and observed his vehemence, the sheer intensity of his animosity towards Dr Kent, I would have been surprised if his conduct had not affected Dr Kent, as he has described. I found Dr Kent to be a straightforward, honest and reasonable man. In my view, he is undoubtedly a man of integrity. 81. The removal of the offer of a place to Mr Matalia s son was instigated by the Local Education Authority, without Dr Kent even knowing the identity of the child. The allegation of racism in regard to it is, frankly, ridiculous. It has been seized upon with glee by Mr Matalia as a stick with which to beat Mr Hickling, Dr Kent and the school. Any reasonable person in possession of these facts would so regard it. 82. The conduct of Mr Matalia, as I have re-heard it, amounts in my judgment to a course of conduct. It is one upon which he has been engaged upon an extended and lengthy period of some two years, October 2012 to the autumn of His treatment of Mr Hickling and Dr Kent, both face to face and through written communications to them and others, has caused them the alarm and distress that Mr Matalia intended to cause them, and any reasonable person would have thought would be caused. 83. I consider that he has crossed the boundary between unattractive or unreasonable conduct to conduct, which is, indeed, oppressive and unacceptable. It has plainly involved a deliberate and persistent course of, in my view, unreasonable and oppressive conduct, which was calculated to, and did, cause alarm, fear or distress. 84. The dictum of Lord Nicholls in Majrowski, cited by Lord Sumption in Willoughby, I find most apt. Mr Matalia has, indeed, acted as an obsessive to pursue a course of deliberate and targeted oppression. Mr Matalia s pursuit of Mr Hickling and Dr Kent, with the intent of coercing the school into bending to his will, has truly been obsessive to the extent, in my view, that it has constituted harassment. 85. The intention required by the statute to make the school do something, which it is not required to do, has been behind his intend from the outset. The requirements of the statute are fulfilled. The Claimant school is, therefore, in my judgment entitled to the injunctive relief which it seeks to prevent any further repetition of behaviour of this nature.