Chris Packham has been forced to pay £200,000 to a pensioner and country sportsman he was accused of pursuing ‘vindictively” through the courts, it has been claimed.
In 2023, the naturalist and BBC presenter was awarded £90,000 in damages after the High Court upheld his defamation claims against two contributors to Country Squire, an online magazine that wrongly accused him of misleading people into donating to a tiger rescue charity.
But his case against Paul Read, a 70-year-old grandfather who was the proofreader for some of the magazine articles, was thrown out by the High Court judge.
It meant Packham, 63, became liable for the pensioner’s legal costs, and Mr Read has now claimed his damages have been dwarfed by that bill.
It is understood the Springwatch presenter had to pay £196,008, more than double the £90,000 he was awarded as damages.
“It looks to have been something of a pyrrhic victory for Mr Packham,” Mr Read said from his home in Selby, North Yorkshire.
Mr Read added: “I felt violated. I believe Packham’s pursuit of me was vindictive. I am so relieved all this is behind me now and I can get on and enjoy what’s left of my retirement. It has been a tough time.”
Mr Read, a retired IT consultant and father of three grown-up children, was informed by Leigh Day, Packham’s solicitors, in March 2021 that he was being sued. He feared that if he lost, he could lose his family home.
He added: “The case, after the initial exchange of letters that March, dragged on until the judge threw out the case against me in 2023. That is a long time for my wife and I to be under that sort of stress.”
Mr Read said he had proofread two of the articles Packham complained about as a favour to a friend.
Dominic Wightman and Nigel Bean, the editor and writer of Country Squire, were found to have defamed Packham in May 2023.
They were ordered to pay the damages after their articles falsely claimed the presenter played the “Asperger’s victim card” and had lied to appeal for donations for a tiger rescue charity.
Packham claimed the articles meant he feared he would not “live a long life free from violence and intimidation”.
OAP had no editorial responsibility
The judge ruled that Packham had not taken part in any fraud. However, he found that Mr Read “had no editorial or equivalent responsibility”, and dismissed the case against him.
Tessa Gregory, of Leigh Day, who refused to confirm or deny the £200,000 costs payment, said: “Our client was forced to challenge the serious and damaging lies being published about him, which not only disparaged him personally but also his work for wildlife charities.
“Whilst the court found that Mr Read was a mere proofreader, our client was entirely vindicated in the judgment in relation to Mr Wightman and Mr Bean.
“The court concluded that, contrary to the articles published, our client did not lie, each of his statements was made with a genuine belief in its truth and there was no fraud of any type committed by him.
“This provides a strong deterrent to anyone who sets out to gratuitously smear someone’s character simply because they don’t agree with their views.”
Packham did not respond to a request for comment
