Social media posts by Laurence Fox calling two people paedophiles would not have been taken 'seriously' by many people, Court of Appeal hears

Daily Mail​

28-07-2025

Social media posts by Laurence Fox referring to two men as paedophiles likely would not have been taken 'seriously' by many people, the Court of Appeal has heard.
The actor-turned-activist was successfully sued by now-Stonewall CEO Simon Blake and drag artist Crystal over a row on Twitter, now known as X.
Fox, 47, called Mr Blake and the former RuPaul 's Drag Race contestant, whose real name is Colin Seymour, 'paedophiles' in an exchange about a decision by Sainsbury's to mark Black History Month in October 2020.
A High Court judge said Fox should pay both men £90,000 each in damages and slammed the Reclaim Party founder for trying to 'attach blame and discredit' the pair during litigation.
Fox called for a boycott of the supermarket and was called 'a racist' by the pair, as well as broadcaster Nicola Thorp, before he responded with the 'paedophile' tweets, which led to the libel claims.
The judge dismissed Mr Fox's counter claims against the pair and Ms Thorp over tweets accusing him of racism.
The 47-year-old is now challenging the £180,000 High Court ruling at the Court of Appeal in London, attending the first day of the hearing today.
Sporting a tattoo of a crucifix on his neck and smoking a cigarette, Fox arrived hand-in-hand with his wife Elizabeth, who he married earlier this year during a private ceremony.
The former actor was dressed in a white shirt, jeans and a pair of tan Vivo barefoot hiking boots worth about £296.
Patrick Green KC, for Mr Fox, said in written submissions that the judgment which found Mr Fox had libelled the pair should be quashed due to 'errors of approach' by the judge, including over whether Mr Blake and Mr Seymour were caused serious harm.
Mr Green said: 'Her conclusions were in any event, plainly wrong, on any fair consideration of the evidence.'
The barrister added that Mrs Justice Collins Rice had wrongly decided damages for the two men, who, along with Ms Thorp, are opposing the appeal.
Mr Green said that the decision on damages did not consider the actual words Mr Fox used 'and the likelihood that many or the vast majority of readers would have not have taken them seriously, particularly in their context'.
The barrister said that in one of her rulings, the judge 'ignores the actual words used, or their all important context'.
He also said the judge 'failed to account adequately or at all' for an apology Mr Fox made, or alleged misconduct by Mr Blake and Mr Seymour in 'exaggerating' the harm and distress caused.
Mr Fox told the original trial in November 2023 that his use of the term was 'rhetorical', and 'there was no inference at any point that I thought they were a paedophile'.
'I was diminishing the ridiculousness of calling me a racist,' he said.
And on Monday, Mr Green said it was clear Mr Fox was being rhetorical.
The barrister told appeal judges: 'He's not saying "I am a racist and they are paedophiles' and everyone understood it in that way."
Adrienne Page KC, for Mr Blake, Mr Seymour and Ms Thorp, said in written submissions that Mr Fox's appeal was 'lacking in merit'.
She continued: 'The "paedophile" tweets did not embody the appellant's opinions about Mr Blake and Mr Seymour.
'They conveyed factual imputations of the most serious defamatory character.'
The barrister added there was 'no meaningful retraction or apology' by Mr Fox.
She later said: 'Whichever way one looks at it, the judge was fully entitled to reach the factual conclusions that she did on the serious, real-world, reputational impact of the appellant's tweets, for the reasons which she gave. There was nothing wrong with her analysis in fact or law.'
Ms Page added that Mr Fox's case at trial had been 'largely devoted to hypothesising, as already noted, a series of different scenarios as to the various ways or settings in which his tweets may have appeared to different readers'.
'After very careful and conscientious evaluation, the judge was, unsurprisingly, not persuaded of this on the facts,' she continued.
Ms Page continued that the sums of £90,000 in damages awarded to the pair were 'unexceptionable'.
The hearing before Lord Justice Dingemans, Lady Justice Elisabeth Laing and Lord Justice Warby is expected to conclude on Tuesday.
During the last court battle, Fox had counter-sued Mr Blake and Mr Seymour and broadcaster Nicola Thorp over tweets accusing him of racism.
In a previous judgment in January 2024, Mrs Justice Collins Rice ruled in favour of Mr Blake and Mr Seymour, dismissing Mr Fox's counter-claims.
During a ruling in April of that year, the judge said Mr Fox should pay Mr Blake and Mr Seymour £90,000 each in damages.
She said: 'By calling Mr Blake and Mr Seymour paedophiles, Mr Fox subjected them to a wholly undeserved public ordeal. It was a gross, groundless and indefensible libel, with distressing and harmful real-world consequences for them.'
During the previous court case, Lorna Skinner KC, for Mr Blake and Mr Seymour, had said the pair should receive 'at least six-figure sums' from Mr Fox, calling a suggestion the pair should only receive a 'modest' award 'nonsense'.
However, Patrick Green KC, for Fox, said the starting point of damages should be between £10,000 and £20,000, with the total being 'substantially lowered' due to an apology from Mr Fox and the absence of malice.
Fox previously described the original judgment as a 'bullies charter' and said he disagreed 'profoundly' with the result.
He said in a post on X at the time: 'I don't know what the judge will award these people. But the costs of these proceedings are enormous. So a whopper of a cheque is getting written in the next few days.'
Fox added: 'We are seeing the courts used maliciously across the west and that is a very concerning trend. So enjoy the victory guys and I hope it is short lived!'
Mrs Justice Collins Rice declined to make an order requiring the 47-year-old to publish a summary of the judge's decision on his X account.
During a hearing in March 2024, Mr Green had said there was no need for the Lewis actor to publicise the ruling decision on his social media.
He said in written submissions: 'This has been the most high-profile libel action of the year and both the trial and the judgment were massively reported in the media.... There can be few, if any, original publishees in the present case who will be unaware of its outcome.'
The barrister added: 'The outcome of this long-running case literally could not be better known than it is already.
'For whatever passing doubts or vague suspicions that may have at some time subsisted in the minds of readers, only a modest financial award in compensation should be due.'
Mr Green added: 'The remarks were quickly retracted and apologised for, and at the very least it was clear to the public at large at an early stage that the allegation was baseless.'