J90PE914 & K00LU633 - [2025] EWHC 2640 (KB)

The date upon which Ms Saunders says she became aware of the “trespass pipe”. It was alleged in the particulars of claim that this was not known until 2017, but when she was shown documentary evidence which contradicted her pleadings – she accepted her error;

She also accepted that she was wrong to plead that Footpath 11 was redundant, when it was not redundant.

The allegations against Mr Gearing that he threatened violence to Joe Jefferies. She signed a statement of truth to the allegation “the Fourth Defendant used a spade to threaten violence to Joe Jefferies” and that “Joe’s photos … show John Gearing threatening him with a spade and shooing him away.” I have seen the video evidence which shows Mr Gearing holding a spade horizontally in a non-threatening manner. The allegation has been withdrawn in light of the physical evidence showing something completely different, but until that video was shown Ms Saunders was willing to tell the court something which was untrue in order to malign Mr Gearing.

Similarly Joe Jefferies is said by Ms Saunders to have been harassed by Ms Melesi. When she challenged him about that in cross examination, Mr Jefferies agreed with Ms Melesi that he had never felt threatened or harassed by her. Again, this was an attempt to wrongly malign Ms Melesi.

The allegations against Darren Honeywill that he had thrown “a cup of tea over the Second Claimant when she went to the caravan site to visit Robert Verdier.” That was a serious allegation which was entirely undermined by the playing of the video of the incident. The video showed that Ms Saunders and Mr Verdier were on the grass of the “chalet land” and that Mr Darren Honeywell was moving towards them and very angry (he had just heard that Ms Saunders had used her car in an incident with Jill Beresford- Ambridge where she had assaulted Ms Beresford-Ambridge who was still on sticks recovering from a hip operation), had taken the cup of tea out of the hand of Mr Verdier and thrown the tea on the ground and put the cup down. Having seen the video footage, Ms Saunders changed her account so that “… when she said thrown, she meant over her hand not when thrown on the ground”. When it was pointed out that was simply not what the video showed, her counsel relayed “My client having seen the video she says she cannot recall …might have splashed on her foot.” This was an attempt to malign Mr Darren Honeywill.

The allegation against “Colm” that he had broken the nose and ribs of Robert Verdier when there was no medical evidence to support the allegations and when, even on Mr Verdier’s account, there was no possibility of his ribs having been broken.

The numerous occasions during Ms Saunders’ cross examination when the court had to grant permission leading counsel to speak to her client in order to avoid the potential of professional embarrassment and withdrawal from the case.

Seemingly acting against the direction of the court not to discuss the case when in the course of being cross-examined, by obtaining information from Mr Verdier which led to her being given the warning against self-incrimination and then not answering any further questions.

Informing the court that the use of the words “potable” and “non-potable” water had come from counsel for the first defendant, when it was in fact Ms Saunders who first referred to the distinction in an email dated 2 November 2020 long before the first defendant’s counsel had any involvement in the case.

Telling the court that she had not read the first defendant’s counsel’s skeleton argument and then admitting that she had in fact read it and that what she had said to the court was a lie.