By Peter Black

Dominic Wightman has been the Editor of Country Squire Magazine since 2016. A co-founder of the magazine, under Dom’s editorship CSM has built up a subscription base of near 100,000 subscribers, has opened an Indian edition and now publishes an offline quarterly copy. Dom as Editor, the magazine’s rural affairs correspondent and a spellchecker were famously sued as individuals in a civil defamation trial by the ex-BBC Countryfile Presenter Chris Packham in 2021. The case reached the High Court in London in May last year. Dom and the writer lost, facing crippling costs and an injunction, while the spellchecker won with Packham ordered to pay his costs and damages – believed to be a six-figure sum. I catch up with Dom and ask him how it’s all going nine months after the 1-2 verdict.

Dom, welcome to Countryside Herald. How are you?

DW: I’m very well. Thanks for asking and thanks for Countryside Herald’s kind invitation for an interview.

How is Country Squire Magazine doing?

DW: The readership is up an eighth in a year, so that’s the eighth consecutive year since launch that we’ve had solid growth. We’re just under seven figures in terms of monthly reads so that’s very pleasing – not bad for a side hustle. For some reason we’ve had an influx of American readers this year. That could be our Deputy Editor Bembridge’s doing. He’s forever doling out business cards to American tourists in Soho’s backstreets.   

I know you are not allowed to discuss last year’s court case versus Packham and are subject to an ongoing injunction and so we’ll avoid any questions about the specific content of that case or the trial, but what was it like for you personally getting such a negative judgement when you had hoped for a resounding win against such a, you called him ‘Marmite’, character?

DW: As I declared in a press release at the time, the judgement was very disappointing. I don’t have much more to add, except, having read it several times through now, perhaps a few more verys. As a participant in a civil defamation trial, you get to read the judgement a few days early so I’d had time to fully digest it by the time the result went public. Our barrister represented us in court so I went sea fishing that beautiful, sunny day, only checking messages on the evening of the day the judgement went public when I was back in phone range. I caught seven mackerel that afternoon! The negative messages sent to the magazine that day, which I read some weeks later, were mostly from dismissible animal rights nutters, sabs and trolls already known to me. Some were from Packham supporters, mostly middle-aged women with cats. There were some anonymous messages sent to Country Squire from people I knew who didn’t know we have an IP logger on the website, so their anonymity attempts failed. Certainly, some of those negative messages were hurtful but, frankly, I’d already pocketed the best bits of the judgement by then and knew precisely what lay ahead and how best to move forward – what doesn’t kill you makes you stronger –  so I was mostly calm and cheerful, enjoying the sunshine during those weeks and catching up on kip.

Having Packham dismiss you and the other defendants in public as ‘online haters’ after the judgement was disgraceful. Can you not sue him for defamation for that? So, journalists are all ‘online haters’ now are they?

DW: I fully support the efforts of the spellchecker’s barrister and Packham’s barrister in their joint efforts to reform the UK libel courts. The powers that be in the UK should take lessons from our American cousins who have maybe achieved a better balance between publisher and claimant for defamation cases although the awards in US courts can also be eyewatering. I’m naturally reluctant to sue anyone for defamation in the UK, I think it’s a waste of time, often boomerangs, and the costs are prohibitive. Not once in the 207 pages of the judgement did the judge refer to any ‘online hate’ – that was Packham characteristically DARVO’ing us after sabs and trolls linked to the Hunt Saboteurs Association who supported him against us defendants had viciously trolled us online for the two years of the litigation, something that is online hate that is referred to in the judgement. The support I received from the mainstream press and media all along – to this day – has been superb, except from the usual suspects on the left of course. Their assistance has been so encouraging. Surprisingly, the BBC have been great too. Level heads laughed off the ‘online hate’ smear – which has as much validity as ‘horses chewing the cud’ and other claptrap Packham regularly spouts; the silly gobshite.  

What has changed in your life since that judgement?

DW: That smear, along with an inability to function as a Director in the UK for a year because of me being forced to bring in the Official Receiver, meant that my involvement in asset management ceased. It cannot start again until earliest the summer of this year, which is silly really as that was my main source of income. With the freed-up time that a forced sabbatical from my day job gave me, I have trained as a ranger and farmer. I’ve also refreshed some old security qualifications and memberships from when I was working in counter terrorism and mining security, so that I am best prepared for work for the future. I have never been one to whine or play the victim and so have just got on with life. I cannot respond to the messages sent to me every week from random people designed to have me react so that I break the injunction imposed against us preventing us from repeating our news story – that can be tricky, so I have the magazine secretary filter emails and messages before I get up. She is based in India so up before me.  

Would you say that ‘pre-litigation Dom’ is different from ‘post-litigation Dom’?

DW: No. Although my blind faith in the British justice system – this experience was a first for me – has waned a tad since being involved in the Packham case! And I am now mindful of the complexities of the court systems – I described the process to the press as like playing football on an ice rink with only the other side wearing skates. I decided to take the horrible judgement on the chin like a man and I am still standing. Therefore, on reflection, I am stronger now than when the litigation started in 2021. So is the magazine.

It must hurt?

DW: No. The first month or so I was annoyed with the judge. Kafka in the circumstances would have been surplus absurdity, so I read Kipling’s If quite a few times. Then I set about maximising each day. Working and training hard, getting to know my children again, seeing friends, and focusing on health and fitness. I refused to spend more than 5% of any day working on the case after the trial finished, as the subject matter is fast fading and just not worth wasting one’s time over. Let’s just say I reached a state of knowing that made me content. I have been relaxed ever since. 

Will you be appealing?

DW: I am unable to comment on any matters related to the litigation.

Sorry. Still, facing such crippling costs must be brutal, no?

DW: People don’t seem to realise that even before you get to court in civil defamation actions you’ve already paid out hundreds of thousands of pounds. Who running secondary publications has hundreds of thousands in the bank or stuffed behind the sofa? Do you, Pete? We managed to get to court and get represented in court (more hundreds of thousands) but then coughing up yet another set of multiple hundreds of thousands is obviously not realistic. I was not, for moral reasons, prepared to look for an exit ramp before the main trial. You must remain calm, take on board professional advice then reach a point of pragmatic realism. You are bound to take the only lawful, reasonable options left open to you and do your best. Costs are prohibitive – a point our supporters made clear to the Justice Secretary so hopefully other publishers can get some help in the future with such cases.

No, in answer to your question!

How did your family and friends take the judgement?

DW: 100% support. That goes without asking. Wightmen are wise and think long-term. They are also made of sterner stuff. If you lose sight of the light in the darkness you become the darkness.

I read you played a lot of rugby. One of the barristers in the case called you a ‘Tory bruiser’ did he not? Did the rugby toughen you up for these kind of life experiences?  

DW: I used to be a pacy winger before all the titanium replacement bones were inserted into me. I played my last game at 35, so a while ago now. I played all over the world, across three continents. I am well-used to getting bruised and bruising others, within the rules of the game of course. I’m not sure my rugby experience was that helpful in court although there were a few moments when I was tempted to reach out across the benches and use a few of the techniques I learnt during my rugby career!

In researching this interview, I read the letters you wrote in response to Packham’s solicitors which they depicted as rude. They didn’t seem that rude to me but they are a great read!

DW: Packham’s chosen solicitors were the tank-chasers, Leigh Day. Look them up. Awful shower. There is an inquisition of one of the firm’s founders that anyone who has any dealings with them should watch. I have a lot of mates in the British Army and you will then entirely comprehend my motivations towards that rabble who are forever suing soldiers and the MOD. Any perceived rudeness towards them I shall wear forever as a badge of honour. Lawyers do not necessarily share the views of their clients – I always understood that – but Leigh Day are about as patriotic as Philby judging by who they represent out of choice over and over.  May all the pigeons of London crap on them whenever they venture outside of their offices. I am glad you enjoyed the letters, Pete – I enjoyed writing them and they were well worth the time and trouble despite what some in the snotty, overpaid, fence-sitting legal community thought of them! Let AI replace the worst of them.

I read your editorials on CSM with interest. How do you see the General Election going this year?

DW: A hung parliament is my best guess. A Lib-Lab coalition. Hopefully Starmer won’t need Swinney or Forbes perhaps when Yousless gets the boot. There are too many shy Tories out there for a Labour majority. Labour has the quadruple whammy of Remainer inclinations, waning Muslim support, a residue of Corbynite MPs and, of course, willy misidentification to cope with. Vote Reform, Vote Labour is a truism that will emasculate Reform’s potentially disastrous effects on the Tory vote after the locals in May which will be grim for Sunak. As a lifelong Tory never for turning, I just hope Mordaunt keeps her seat and fast learns how to distance herself from negative WEF perceptions – Labour fear her even more than they fear themselves and I wanted her to win the leadership race pre-Truss. She can be moulded. Bruising Labour when they are in will be great sport, mind you.

I hear there might be some books from you in the offing?

DW: There are multiple books that I’ve written which have sat unpublished on pen drives for years. I never got round to polishing them off. Of late I’ve spent the odd weekend getting them into shape. I have four readyish – one’s a collaboration with our writer John Nash called ‘Dear Townies’ which is about the British Countryside. So, watch this space!

Do you have any other exciting plans for the near future?

DW: Best I do not comment. Will ‘going fishing’ suffice?  

No problem at all, Dom. Thanks so much for the interview. Very best of luck to you, to the Squires and all associated. You have a lot of support.

DW: Thanks to you and to your magazine. Best of luck and keep up the good fight, Pete.

Thanks Dom.