What did Laurence Fox say? Actor to discover libel appeal result after social media posts where he called two people paedophiles
Laurence Fox is due to discover whether his libel appeal over social media posts where he called two people paedophiles has been successful.
The actor-turned-activist was sued by now-Stonewall chief executive Simon Blake and drag artist Crystal over a row on X. Mr Fox, 47, called Mr Blake and the former RuPaul’s Drag Race contestant, whose real name is Colin Seymour, “paedophiles” in an exchange about a decision by Sainsbury’s to mark Black History Month in October 2020.
Mr Fox called for a boycott of the supermarket and was called “a racist” by the men, as well as broadcaster Nicola Thorp, before he responded with the “paedophile” tweets which led to the libel claims. In two judgments in 2024, Mrs Justice Collins Rice ruled in favour of Mr Blake and Mr Seymour, and said Mr Fox should pay them £90,000 each in damages.
The judge dismissed Mr Fox’s counter claims against them and Ms Thorp over tweets accusing him of racism. Mr Fox then challenged this decision at the Court of Appeal in London, where his lawyers described the previous judge’s decision as “plainly wrong”.
Lord Justice Dingemans, Lady Justice Elisabeth Laing and Lord Justice Warby said at the end of the two-day hearing in July that they will give their decision in writing at a later date, and it is now expected to be handed down at 10am on Friday. Patrick Green KC, for Mr Fox, said in written submissions that the judgment which found Mr Fox had libelled the men should be quashed because of “errors of approach” by the judge, including over whether Mr Blake and Mr Seymour were caused serious harm.
The barrister added that Mrs Justice Collins Rice had wrongly decided damages for the men, who, with Ms Thorp, opposed the appeal. He said that in one of her rulings the judge “ignores the actual words used, or their all-important context”.
Adrienne Page KC, for Mr Blake, Mr Seymour and Ms Thorp, said in written submissions that Mr Fox’s appeal was “lacking in merit”. She later said: “Whichever way one looks at it, the judge was fully entitled to reach the factual conclusions that she did on the serious, real-world, reputational impact of the appellant’s tweets, for the reasons which she gave.
“There was nothing wrong with her analysis in fact or law. After very careful and conscientious evaluation, the judge was, unsurprisingly, not persuaded of this on the facts.”