King's / Queen's Bench Division of the High Court

KB-2025-000232 - [2025] EWHC 1784 (KB)

Fecha: 15-Jul-2025

The unredacted England Athletics emails

The unredacted England Athletics emails

36.

The Claimant made an application for England Athletics to disclose the unredacted emails. In his Order dated 9 May 2025, Master Davison directed England Athletics to disclose the unredacted emails to the parties by 4pm on 23 May 2025 (subject to England Athletics having the opportunity to apply to set aside or vary the order (in relation to which, no such application was made)). The Master also required the Defendant to disclose: (a) emails within the date range of 3 February -15 March 2024 that she had sent to or received from England Athletics and (b) any emails within that date range concerning the claimant. In his accompanying Reasons, the Master noted that disclosure of the unredacted emails should put their authorship beyond doubt and that this was a central issue for the Preliminary Issues Trial. He indicated that he had considered the interests of the author or publisher of the emails (if, as the Defendant maintained, it was not her), but had concluded “those interests are subordinate to the need to do justice in the particular case before me”. He went on to observe that the emails were likely to be sent on an occasion of qualified privilege (which is not an issue that is before me at this stage).

37.

By his subsequent Order of 21 May 2025, the Master clarified that the Defendant was not obliged to disclose emails to or from the police or Victim Support and that she was entitled to redact purely personal information.

38.

England Athletics duly disclosed the unredacted copies of the emails. This indicated:

The First Email was sent to Walton AC (the Claimant’s Athletics Club). It was written by a person whose name was withheld. The email was sent from the same email address as the sender of the Third, Fourth and Fifth Emails;

ii)

The Second Email was sent from a Nick Bevan, an Education and Leisure Adviser at the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents (ROSPA), to an email address at British Athletics relating to safety and to a ROSPA email address relating to athletics safety. In his email, Mr Bevan described a conversation he said he had just had with a “Lindsey Gauntlett” (it appears from subsequent emails that the correct spelling is “Lindsay”). Mr Bevan provided Ms Gauntlett’s email address, which was the same email address as the First, Third, Fourth and Fifth Emails were sent from. Whilst I do not know the precise relationship between ROSPA, British Athletics and England Athletics, it is common ground that the emails were passed on to England Athletics.

iii)

The Third, Fourth and Fifth Emails were written from “Lindsay” to the athletics safety at ROSPA email address. The Fifth Email was also sent to a Sarah Harrison at England Athletics. The emails were all sent from the email address given for Ms Gauntlett in the Second Email.

39.

The disclosure from England Athletics also included an email from the same email address to Sarah Harrison at England Athletics which was sent on the same day as the Fifth Email, but prior to it at 14:20 hours.

40.

On 23 May 2025, the Defendant gave disclosure of her emails for the period stipulated by the Master.

41.

The Master subsequently made an Order dated 18 June 2025, dealing with several matters. He declined to set aside or vary his Order of 21 May 2025 relating to the Defendant’s disclosure. He refused the Defendant’s application for sanctions against the Claimant for not serving a witness statement, pointing out that the Claimant had a choice in that respect and had chosen not to serve witness evidence. The Master also set aside witness summonses which the Claimant had obtained against PC Nick Whitman, Lindsay Gauntlett and Michelle Sojka.

42.

In his Reasons accompanying the 18 June 2025 Order, the Master reiterated that the evidence that would be relevant for the Preliminary Issues Trial was confined to the single factual issue of whether the Defendant was the author or publisher of the England Athletics emails. He could not see the relevance of the witnesses who the Claimant had summonsed and witness statements had not been served in respect of any of them. He noted that Ms Gauntlett had accepted that she was the author of the England Athletics emails in a recent email to the Court. He observed that unless it was to be said that Ms Gauntlett was acting on the instructions of the Defendant, which he did not understand to be alleged, there was nothing to be served by her personally attending the hearing.

43.

On 20 June 2025 (in response to a communication to the Court from the Claimant), a member of the Court staff emailed the parties saying that the Master had indicated that if the Claimant wishes to allege that the Defendant had procured or instructed Lindsay Gauntlett to publish the England Athletics emails “then he should set out the basis for that by amending or adding to the ‘Claimant’s Case for Trial of Preliminary Issues’ which he filed on 3 April 2025, or, if he prefers, in a fresh document”.

44.

The email did not impose a deadline for the Claimant to take this step. In any event, the trial bundle (which the Claimant prepared) included an undated document beginning at page 176 headed “Unredacted Emails: [Lindsay Gauntlett and Defendant]”. The gist of the document was that the Claimant alleged that the Defendant and Ms Gauntlett had acted in collusion with each other in respect of the publication of the emails and as part of a wider campaign aimed at discrediting him. Mr Ness’ position in this regard was developed in his cross-examination of Ms Miller and in his oral submissions to the Court (paras 51 and 71 – 73 below).