The paragraphs under "truth defence" do seem to indicate that there was some kin... | Hacker News

Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit

		jeroenhd 32 days ago \| parent \| context \| favorite \| on: Dr Matthew Garrett v Dr Roy Schestowitz and Anor The paragraphs under "truth defence" do seem to indicate that there was some kind of proof shown to the judge (https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewhc/kb/2025/3063#pa...) though it's not directly posted there. The entire situation is an awful mess. I don't really understand why TR/TM didn't have a solicitor in this case. The moment they showed up without legal representation, they pretty much lost the case. I can only guess at their reasons, but two counter suits failing probably cost them a decent chunk of change that would leave anyone short on cash.

pjc50 32 days ago [–]

I'm not surprised, given that it's very expensive, but it's also quite possible that they couldn't find someone who could give them the answer they wanted, a route to winning despite not having any evidence.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact