Peter Reynolds

The life and times of Peter Reynolds

Chris Bovey, The Thief, Liar And Abuser Must Pay £50,000.

with 14 comments

Not, unfortunately, to me but to his lawyers.

Today, there was a hearing at the Royal Courts of Justice before Master Eastman. A Master is a junior judge who is concerned only with procedural matters. Bovey’s very pretty barrister, Yuli Takatsuki, applied to have my claim for defamation struck out on the grounds that my “pleadings are plainly defective” – and she succeeded.

In plain English that means that none of the issues or evidence were considered. My claim was struck out because I didn’t comply with all the highly technical wording that was necessary to have my case considered.

As Master Eastman put it:

“Pleading in defamation cases is a minefield for the amateur and Mr Reynolds has not got through the minefield.”

So I am immensely satisfied that Bovey has been made to pay. An order for costs has been made against me but Master Eastman has invited me to appeal to a more senior judge and I will. I may well be able to get my claim reinstated.

Master Eastman’s ruling, based on guidance previously given by the most senior media judge, the Honourable Mr Justice Tugendhat, effectively prohibits litigants in person from bringing claims for defamation. It means that it is virtually impossible without expert lawyers with access to specialist reference and law libraries as the requirements are so highly technical and complex. This raises extremely serious issues about access to justice under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

If Master Eastman’s ruling is not challenged it will mean that any wealthy individual who runs a campaign of lies, abuse, harassment and defamation, as Bovey has against me, will be able to get away with it. All they have to do, as Bovey has done, is pay their lawyers to delay, obfuscate and divert the proceedings until they are struck out without the issues and evidence even being considered.

So this case is set to run and run. I am not about to back down. Bullies and cowards like Bovey need to be stood up to. There will be more days in court and, if he continues to hide behind his expensive lawyers, more big bills.

Also, now that I have done the right thing and tried to resolve our dispute in the proper way, honour has been satisfied. I no longer feel any moral obligation to hold back on the evidence I have about Bovey.

Therefore, in due course I shall publish the cast iron, documentary proof of his theft, lies, duplicity and his involvement in an international gang of “legal highs” distributors. This is where his wealth comes from by selling highly toxic and dangerous substances, mainly to young people. This is what has enabled him to organise and pay his accomplices to publish lies and abuse about me. In his own words, dated and time stamped, you will read exactly how he planned his campaign against me and the other people he has involved.

So, expect to see the usual crowing and celebration from Bovey’s sycophants and pet trolls. That will have died down in a week or so. Then I shall start to publish. I won’t indulge in the sort of oafish abuse which he favours. I shall simply publish the facts and evidence.

Meanwhile, concerning my appeal, “the wheels of justice turn slowly but grind exceedingly fine”. Bovey’s day of reckoning approaches and the consequences for him become more severe, the longer he tries to delay accepting responsibility for his actions.

Written by Peter Reynolds

January 23, 2014 at 8:45 pm

14 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. I see what you mean as regards
    It is a closed shop with many inner circles, but so seemingly is the rest of the world – the question is, are you getting your money’s worth from the court service, or is it you who is wasting time and money for yourself and the others?

    You must accept it is your duty to present your case in proper form; you sought a legal remedy and that required you to clearly state your case in line with the established Rules and Protocols. Clearly the court has a duty to protect respondents/defendants from losses incurred by their having to respond to civil proceedings initiated by others, especially when ‘arguably unarguable’ and initiated by people who cannot or will not honour their duty to repay any legal costs they cause others through dragging them into unnecessary or vexatious legal actions.

    I agree with the sentiment that justice should be open and accessible, but the duty to fulfil substantive pleading obligations for the sake of clarity and legal certainty abides. What exactly have you failed to do if you don’t mind me asking?

    Darryl Bickler

    January 27, 2014 at 12:42 pm

    • I agree, of course, that pleadings must be presented in proper form in accordance with the CPR. However, the “defects” alleged in my pleadings are nothing to do with the CPR but with ‘Gatley on Libel and Slander’, an incredibly expensive collection of legal authorities which I do not have access to and which my library has refused to obtain for me.

      The principal alleged “defects” concern the pleading of publication which for online defamation is said to require the identities of each person to whom the words were published or a platform of facts from which an inference of publication can be drawn, e.g. no. of times a web page has been accessed within the jurisdiction.

      Clearly there is a conflict in the law which needs to be considered. As it stands a wealthy individual like Bovey can escape justice by using expensive lawyers against a litigant in person. I already have the informal opinion of one criminal barrister of 10 years calling who says if the test is set so high and requirements are so technical then the Master should assist a litigant in person with the drafting if there is a prima facie claim.

      Ironically, as the appeal will be about the rights of a litigant in person, it seems that I may be getting pro bono counsel as it is such a ‘sexy’ bit of law!

      Peter Reynolds

      January 27, 2014 at 1:12 pm

      • I am all for the rights of the litigant in person (LIP) who defends against any accusation. As far as a LIP bringing actions is concerned, I would have to be convinced that the LIP claimant had been actually harmed by events, as opposed to trying to cause as much cost as possible. Clearly there has been much upset, but inviting the authorities in to adjudicate it must be an absolute last resort, especially when its just about bickerring about who is going to make a name / buck for themselves over the human rights issue that is supposed to be the focus, ie the rights of people who use drugs as opposed to those who choose to spend thousands litigating over insults.

        The test for running an appeal will be on the prima facie case issue, if you haven’t presented that then the matter wouldn’t warrant further consideration, they won’t impose a duty on the judge to help you, in any event I would expect there would be a demand for insurance or security for costs in place before granting a right to appeal.

        Darryl Bickler

        January 27, 2014 at 4:09 pm

  2. this is disgraceful and rubbing your face in it Peter, and is essentially re-victimizing you. You should be aware that if supporters of these people start contacting you with abuse over this unjust decision by the RCJ that you must make the courts aware of it.


    January 27, 2014 at 1:26 pm

  3. My sincere apologies for the wrong link above Peter. I of course meant that this link is a disgraceful rubbing your nose in it and gloating publication. The fact the mainstream media has not seen fit to report on this shows how petty it is and that it is not at all newsworthy.


    January 27, 2014 at 3:16 pm

    • Thank you Alison. I have had two offers of pro bono assistance today, one from a solicitor and one from a barrister so I think this striking out may prove a blessing in disguise.

      Peter Reynolds

      January 27, 2014 at 6:06 pm

  4. Dear Peter,

    myself and my colleagues and many friends do not believe for one minute Bovey’s claims that he was in a “cult mindset” at the time of supporting you ! He claims to be a wealthy businessman and therefore could in no way succumb to ever being a cultist. I personally believe he latched on to you because he saw the potential of your organization making certain recreational substances legal, and that of course would have had a dramatic impact on his substances business and he saw the potential to increase his income ! So, the “cult mindset” is a non starter. Keep on keeping on Peter, and remember, the only way is up 4 U !


    January 29, 2014 at 9:35 am

    • Bovey is a liar, a conman and a serial abuser. He knew exactly what he was doing at all times and chose to reverse his ‘opinion’ of me when he saw that it might be to his financial advantage. In due course I shall be publishing his correspondence with me and really the ludicrous idea that he was in a ‘cult mindset’ is the only possible explanation for such a radical and diametric reversal of his position. It may be possible but it is utterly incredible!

      A number of people who are now members of Bovey’s gang are also going to be quite shocked to see how he has changed his opinion of them. He is a duplicitous, insincere cheat.

      Yesterday, I completed my application to LawWorks which will be posted today. I have already exchanged correspondence with Master Eastman about my appeal to a High Court judge.

      Peter Reynolds

      January 29, 2014 at 11:18 am

  5. i see the defamatory interview calling you a racist and homophobe are still available in the public domain, Peter ! and as for claiming Stockholm Sydrome, I literally laughed myself silly at this definition and pictured you as some sort of high heeled dominatrix what ludicrous claims “Stockholm Syndrome”, “Cult mindset” ! Looking forward to seeing your publications referred to above.


    January 29, 2014 at 12:39 pm

    • I anticipate that my amended particulars of claim will include a large number of further instances of defamation which, as they remain online, recent case law shows are not covered by the 12 month limitation period which applies to conventional publishing.

      I also expect to be adding a claim for special damages to reflect the damage caused to my health by Bovey’s campaign, which I was careful to ensure that my doctor recorded.

      Peter Reynolds

      January 29, 2014 at 2:40 pm

  6. My heartiest confibularities to you for this Peter Bovey & Co get no press coverage so they have to resort to massaging each others ego’s, but if you were as bad as they and their cohorts suggest, why is it the huffington post come to you for comments and not them ! ;>} Well done. Have a great weekend Peter.


    January 31, 2014 at 4:41 pm

  7. […] kept quiet about his behaviour and the vast quantity of evidence I have about him but as I wrote last week, I shall not be silent any more.  This is the sort of attack that I have been subject to on virtually a daily basis for nearly two […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: