Newspaper editor issues High Court writ against town council

Martin Shipton

A newspaper editor has issued a High Court writ for libel against a town council, claiming its clerk posted grossly offensive and reputationally damaging comments about him on Facebook.

Tom Sinclair edits The Pembrokeshire Herald, which last year published a series of articles relating largely to personality clashes between the clerk to Neyland Town Council, Libby Matthews, and some of its present and former councillors.

Mr Sinclair claims that since the articles were published, he has become the subject of a vilification campaign.

In a pre-action letter sent to the council on December 7 2025, he stated: “On 8 October 2025, you published on your official Facebook page a statement accusing me and The Pembrokeshire Herald of: “targeted… bullying articles” “relentless, belligerent and targeted reporting”, causing distress deliberately. The statement was presented as fact, not opinion, without evidence and without offering any right of reply.

“The clear defamatory meaning is that I am a malicious, unethical and bullying journalist who abuses press freedom to harass a public official.

“This meaning is false and gravely damaging to my professional reputation.

“The clear defamatory meaning is that I am a malicious, unethical and bullying journalist who abuses press freedom to harass a public official.

“This meaning is false and gravely damaging to my professional reputation.

“Serious harm is clearly established: the post has been viewed, commented on and shared thousands of times in a small community.

“A comment labelling me a ‘nonce’ remained visible beneath your statement for eight weeks.

”On 6 December 2025, your Clerk posted publicly: ‘Hey guess what, Tom… FUCK YOU too – saddest man alive!”.

“This is a vindictive personal attack by your Proper Officer in her public capacity. The reputational damage and distress caused are substantial and ongoing.”

Response

Mr Sinclair has now told Nation.Cymru: “Following their request for an additional 28 days to respond to the Pre-Action Protocol letter, they have failed to provide any substantive response. In total, they have now had close to two months to engage, which is well beyond the usual 14-day period.

“In the absence of any meaningful reply, I have had little option but to proceed with issuing a claim in the King’s Bench Division of the High Court (Media and Communications List). The claim has now been filed.”

The claim, which entailed paying a court fee of £10,000, states: “The Claimant reports on matters of local governance and public accountability. His work is carried out in the public interest and depends upon maintaining professional credibility and public trust. The Defendant is Neyland Town Council, a public authority which operates official websites and social-media platforms for communication with members of the public.

“In the course of his work, the Claimant has investigated and reported on matters concerning the Defendant and its conduct as a local authority. The Claimant has at all material times acted as a journalist and editor in the ordinary course of his profession.

“On or about 8 October 2025 the Defendant published an official written statement on its official Facebook page referring to the Claimant and his newspaper. The statement described the Claimant’s reporting, inter alia, as “targeted”; “bullying”; “relentless”; “belligerent”; conduct causing distress and harm. The statement was widely accessible to members of the public and remains available online.

“In their natural and ordinary meaning the words meant and were understood to mean that the Claimant engaged in bullying and harassment; conducted journalism in an improper, unethical or abusive manner; deliberately targeted individuals maliciously; behaved in a manner unfit for a professional editor or journalist.

“The allegations are false. The Defendant has never provided any factual basis for those allegations.

“Following publication, a comment appeared on the Defendant’s official social media pages alleging that the Claimant was a ‘nonce’ Such a word amounts to an allegation that the Claimant is a paedophile or child sex offender. The Claimant notified the Defendant and requested removal. Despite notice, the Defendant permitted the comments to remain publicly visible for an extended period.

“The Defendant actively moderates and controls its social media platforms. The Defendant’s Town Clerk engaged directly within the same discussion thread, demonstrating knowledge of and control over the content. In those circumstances, the Defendant is responsible as publisher for the continued display of those comments.

“After service of pre-action correspondence, the Defendant’s Town Clerk and/or associated accounts publicly liked, commented upon and promoted third-party posts repeating and amplifying allegations that the Claimant had engaged in criminal conduct including harassment and that he should be imprisoned. By endorsing and encouraging those posts, the Defendant adopted and republished their defamatory meanings.

“The publications complained of are defamatory of the Claimant at common law and have caused and are likely to cause serious harm to his reputation within the meaning of section 1 of the Defamation Act 2013. The allegations concern criminal sexual conduct of the utmost gravity and plainly tend to lower the Claimant in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally. The Defendant is a public authority whose official communications carry particular credibility within the local community. Real-world repetition and impact.

“Following publication, the same allegations were repeated within the local community. Individuals approached the Claimant repeating the accusation that he was a ‘nonce’.

“ On 5 December 2025 at approximately 21:42, graffiti repeating the allegation appeared in the toilets of the Lord Kitchener Hotel in Milford Haven, premises regularly attended by the Claimant. The Claimant was notified and photographed the graffiti contemporaneously. The original image metadata records the time, date and location. The graffiti was removed immediately by the Landlord.

“The allegation was further overheard being repeated publicly at Haverfordwest Magistrates’ Court by a court user in the presence of members of the public, another journalist and a police officer. These matters demonstrate the spread of the defamatory allegations beyond social media and into the Claimant’s professional and local community environment.

“The publications have caused the Claimant embarrassment, distress, anxiety and damage to his professional standing and credibility as an editor and journalist.

“The Defendant failed to engage properly with the Pre-Action Protocol. The Defendant continued publication after notice. The Defendant’s conduct in endorsing and amplifying third-party defamatory allegations aggravated the injury to the Claimant’s reputation.”

Mr Sinclair is claiming damages for libel, aggravated damages, an injunction requiring removal of the publications, a correction and/or apology, costs and interest.

The council has not responded to requests for comment.