Fame at last

Written by

Ophelia Benson

in

Developments in Sarah Phillimore’s libel case against Jolyon Maugham:

Open letter sent August 28 2026

Phillimore v Maugham KC: Open Offer

KB-2026-002022

1. We continue to act for the Claimant, Sarah Phillimore, in a spirit of collegiality and with a genuine desire to resolve this matter proportionately. We invite you to consider both this open offer and the reasoning that follows with care.

The current position

2. Our client’s Particulars of Claim set out three publications, each of which accused her of leading a campaign of harassment so wicked that another person attempted suicide. Your client admitted at the pre-action stage that each publication was defamatory at common law and caused serious harm to our client’s reputation. The publications achieved very substantial reach: over 400,000 followers on X alone, with hundreds of thousands of views, and continuing publication on Bluesky, TikTok and Instagram to audiences numbering in the hundreds of thousands.

I recommend reading the whole thing. The lawyerly dispassion and clarity are a treat. Upshot is Phillimore did nothing wrong so you might as well settle, you damn fool – only of course the last three words are not actually written. Felt in the air, but not written.

Maugham of course did not agree to settle.

Then there’s the part about the witness.

9. We are mindful that the person at the centre of the underlying complaint – Sophie Weddell – is, on any view, a vulnerable individual. Weddell’s own witness statement, served in support of the GLP complaint, described very significant mental health difficulties. Our client takes no pleasure whatsoever in that contested defamation proceedings, with the publicity they inevitably attract, risk causing Weddell further distress, particularly if your client’s truth defence requires them to give evidence and be cross-examined on the matters set out in the Particulars of Claim, the BSB’s decision letter, and the Independent Reviewer’s report.

10. Our client would prefer that Weddell is spared that ordeal entirely.

Weddell, on the other hand, is on Blue Sky jumping up and down begging to be a witness.

Dear Austin McCormick, I'm happy to be Jo's Witness in court.I ask the following defamatory blog post be removed. As this contributes to SV PhIllmore's harrassment against myself and my gender identity.sarahphillimore.substack.com/p/an-open-of…

— Sophie Molly (@sophiemolly.co.uk) 2026-09-19T18:31:19.525Z

He cannot wait for his closeup, Mister DeMille.

Comments

2 responses to “Fame at last”

  1. Your Name's not Bruce? Avatar
    Your Name’s not Bruce?

    My favourite bits:

    8. We appreciate that, as the adage goes, sorry seems to be the hardest word. However, as we are sure your client will recognise, an apology is the only mature and professional response to demonstrated error which causes harm to others.

    11. We note that your client’s defence appears to be funded by the Good Law Project, an organisation that raises funds from the public to pursue litigation in the public interest. We respectfully suggest that the considerable costs of defending a defamation claim to trial, in circumstances where the regulatory complaint that gave rise to the publications has been comprehensively rejected, is not the best use of donors’ money. An apology costs nothing.

    This is, we respectfully suggest, an extraordinarily generous offer. Our client asks for no money. She asks only for the truth – namely, that the accusations were wrong – to be acknowledged.

  2. Ophelia Benson Avatar
    Ophelia Benson

    It’s all a treat to read.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

More posts