QB-2022-001397 - [2025] EWHC 2193 (KB)

On 24 February 2025, the Claimant gave notice that Arnold Oceng “has recently indicated he is not able to attend trial”. In the absence of any reason for his inability to attend, on 4 March 2025 I granted the Guardian’s application for permission to serve a binding witness summons on Mr Oceng and to call him for cross-examination: see para ‎37 above.

The Guardian instructed a process server who, in the week from 5 March 2025, attended the address given by Mr Oceng in his witness statement on five occasions to serve him with the summons requiring his attendance at court at 10am on 18 March 2025. The process server was met by a woman living at the property who confirmed she was Mr Oceng’s mother, but stated that he did not live at the property. The process server provided Mr Oceng’s mother with her contact details, and asked her to ask Mr Oceng to contact her, which he did not do. The witness summons was also served on Mr Oceng by post sent to the same address.

When the matter was raised with the Court, on 14 March 2025, the Claimant indicated, through his Counsel, that he would assist the Guardian by providing Mr Oceng’s email address and telephone number. In the event, TKP stated that they only had a telephone number for Mr Oceng (which they provided) and not an email address. The Guardian duly served the witness summons on Mr Oceng via WhatsApp to the telephone number they were given. Mr Oceng did not respond to the summons, and failed to attend court on 18 March as required, or at any other point during the trial.

The Guardian submits that since Mr Oceng appears to have calculated that it is better for him to risk being in contempt of court than it is for him to give the evidence in his witness statement on oath, the Court is entitled to draw the conclusion that key elements of that statement are false. I agree.

It is a short statement, consisting of 13 paragraphs (two of which the Claimant agreed to strike out). At paragraphs 6 and 7 of his statement, Mr Oceng denied that he sent an explicit video of himself to Mr Clarke on Snapchat while filming Brotherhood, claiming he became a member of Snapchat on 8 November 2022. A post from him on 28 August 2016 shows that he was on Snapchat much earlier than he has claimed, and the Claimant’s disclosure shows that Mr Oceng sent explicit images to Mr Clarke and Jason Maza (albeit the disclosed video is not of Mr Oceng). I infer that Mr Oceng concluded he would be unable to answer the obvious questions to be put to him in cross-examination. I give no weight to Mr Oceng’s evidence as to the circumstances in which Philippa Crabb was (admittedly) late to the set of Brotherhood on 19 December 2015.