Campaign Against Antisemitism loses "vexatious" court case against Reginald D. Hunter

One of the most frustrating aspects of our legal system is how groups and individuals can launch private prosecutions against people, even when authorities have decided there is no case to answer. Private prosecutions are sometimes exploited by those who want to intimidate and silence their political opponents. It appears we have one such example in the case of the Campaign Against Antisemitism versus Reginald D. Hunter.

The CAA brought a private prosecution against comedian Reginald D. Hunter following an incident at the Edinburgh Fringe Festival last year. A couple claimed they were hounded out of the club by Hunter and the audience following an “antisemitic incident”.

The incident allegedly began with the following quip from Hunter: “It’s easier to have a relationship with an abusive Jewish husband than criticise Israel.”

As the couple left the venue, they were allegedly heckled with the crowd chanting “Free Palestine”. Hunter allegedly said: “I’ve been waiting for this all summer... typical fucking Jews.”

The couple in question were British-Israeli lawyer Mark Lewis and his partner Mandy Blumenthal. Eye witnesses, such as journalist Sangita Myska, disputed the couple’s version of events on social media. Myska posted:

“I hoped to stay out of this (due to stress since April) but it’s unethical to let it pass: I was, coincidentally, at this show. The events are not being reported accurately by some press. Yes, it was upsetting but the couple were not ‘hounded out’ by a ‘baying’ antisemitic crowd.”

Camera footage did not seem to corroborate what the couple said took place, although it didn’t show everything.

Many felt the incident was pre-planned in an attempt to cancel Hunter for his anti-Israel views. The couple deny this, saying they had seen Hunter on TV and expected good comedy. However, the Telegraph published a review of the gig which appeared to misrepresent what took place, lending credence to the accusations of a set up.

Lewis and Blumenthal spoke out against the incident and a Zionist activist called Heidi Bachram was vocal about it on Twitter. Hunter publicly apologised for what took place, but the criticism continued with Bachram and others refusing to let it go.

The CAA—a registered charity—sent letters demanding that venues cancel Hunter and got its lawyers to look into the matter. Police Scotland investigated and decided there was no case to answer.

Hunter clearly felt under attack and sent two regrettable messages to Bachram in response to the deluge of comments she had posted about him. Hunter’s messages seemed to be driven by frustration rather than hatred. One of the posts was reportedly an explicit image and another was a text post which read:

“THIS is why I HATE these people and am committed to their destruction not JEW hatred but hatred of liars and lying and the culture of lying that allows liars to rise and thrive.”

Those messages were the excuse that the CAA needed to pursue Hunter. It decided to bring a private prosecution under Section 127 of the Communications Act 2003. This matter has been hanging over Hunter’s head for the past 20 months. The case has no doubt caused enormous stress and anxiety and led to cancelled gigs and loss of income.

Hunter failed to attend the first court hearing, leading to a warrant for his attendance, something the CAA gloated about on Twitter. He then launched a fundraiser so he could defend himself in court.

Yesterday, Hunter’s lawyers persuaded the judge to throw out the case, and the judgment was damning. The judge accused the CAA of failing in its duty of candour by not disclosing all relevant information during the summons application.

The judge pointed out there had been no disclosure of Mark Lewis’ ties to the CAA, and no mention of criticisms of the CAA from Parliament and the Charity Commission. He also highlighted a failure to show the full context of Heidi Bachram’s social media posts (the judge had been led to believe that Hunter had attacked Bachram over her Jewish faith, rather than her ongoing attempt to have him cancelled).

Here is the final part of the judgment:

The judge said that if the CAA had disclosed all relevant information in the application, he would have seen the case as “vexatious” and rejected it. He accused the CAA of not “playing it straight” and using the legal system improperly to try to cancel Hunter. He instructed the CAA to disclose this judgment if it ever brings another private prosecution. It looks like the judge might have finally put a stop to this lawfare.

For those who are unaware, Mark Lewis and Mandy Blumenthal are not just a random Jewish couple who innocently attended a Hunter gig. They are pro-Israel fanatics who regularly attend protests and campaign on behalf of Israel. Lewis happens to be a former patron of, and ongoing advisor to, the CAA.

I understand the couple currently live in Israel but regularly return to the UK. I struggle to believe they were unaware of Hunter’s anti-Israel views and accidentally stumbled across them during their return trip.

Lewis and Blumenthal first came to my attention in 2019 when they were interviewed by Victoria Derbyshire on the BBC. They claimed to be an ordinary Jewish couple who were being driven out of the UK by Corbyn and his supporters.

Not long after, Lewis became the lawyer for Rachel Riley and Tracy Ann-Oberman—two minor pro-Israel celebrities. He sent dozens of legal threats to their critics via Twitter over a row that stemmed from accusations of antisemitism against Jeremy Corbyn. The row involved a 16-year-old girl who some felt had been bullied by the pair.

I received an informal legal threat, but not from Lewis, from another lawyer that I assumed was linked to him. The threat I received went nowhere, but some individuals paid out large sums to Lewis and publicly apologised to avoid going to court.

A friend called Jane Heybroek fought Riley and Oberman and won in court with the pair paying a substantial settlement. Another friend, Phillip Proudfoot secured a court victory against Oberman over a different matter. These lawyers depend on us not being able to defend ourselves and this is what makes it so sinister.

Mark Lewis was a director for UK Lawyers for Israel from 2015-18, stepping down when he moved to Israel. This leads me to suspect that Israel is behind this lawfare, although the accusation can’t be proven. Both Lewis and the Campaign Against Antisemitism only ever seem to target critics of Israel. Certainly, that is all they are ever doing when they are drawn to my attention.

It has been a frustration that over the years, they have caused enormous stress and financial harm to critics of Israel under the guise of fighting antisemitism, and they have been guilty of terrible behaviour.

For example, in 2018 Lewis was fined £2,500 by a Solicitor’s Disciplinary Tribunal for his abusive behaviour on social media over an 18-month period. This is the same guy who sues others for their social media posts. You see the problem here?

The question many of us have is why are lawyers who appear to work for a foreign state allowed to exploit our legal system? The Campaign Against Antisemitism is supposed to be a charity, but my understanding of anti-racism charities is they are supposed to raise awareness, not prosecute people. How is that charitable?

The CAA is behind the private prosecution of David Miller, the academic who initially won a tribunal against Bristol University for unfair dismissal over his anti-Zionist views. It was behind the failed judicial review over the failure to prosecute activist Nazim Ali over his criticisms of Zionism.

The CAA was behind the attempted cancellation of music act Bob Vylan for their “Death to the IDF” chant. It wrote to venues demanding cancellation and issued multiple statements criticising the police over their failure to act. It also attacked the BBC for airing the Bob Vylan Glastonbury set.

Police have decided the Bob Vylan incident does not meet the threshold for criminality and are taking no further action. It will be interesting to see if the CAA tries another private prosecution. Somehow I can’t see it ending well for them…

Thankfully, the judge in the Reginald D. Hunter case has seen through the CAA’s nonsense, but this is not enough. The next step is to get the CAA’s charitable status removed. An investigation into the CAA from the Charity Commission found evidence of mismanagement and issued trustees with a Regulatory Action Plan to improve governance and operations. It would appear that the CAA has not improved its behaviour…

---

Thank you for reading. All of my content will always be freely available, but if you wish to support my work, you can do so at Ko-fi or Patreon. Likes, shares and comments also help massively.