Court summons against Reginald D Hunter quashed for seeking to have him ‘cancelled’ | Reginald D Hunter
A subpoena issued against Reginald D Hunter has been quashed after a judge said the Campaign Against Antisemitism had misled him in bringing a private case against the comedian.
District judge Michael Snow said the group’s intention to sue Hunter was to “get him annulled” and ruled the investigation was “abuse”.
He said the Campaign Against Antisemitism (CAA) had “shown, by its misleading and partial summary of its application and its deliberate, repeated failure to comply with its disclosure obligations, that its true and sole purpose in seeking to prosecute RH was to have it annulled”. “I have no doubt that the prosecution was malicious.”
The US stand-up comedian was accused of sending offensive communications to Heidi Bachram on social media three times (on August 24, September 10 and 11 last year). A summons was issued in the case.
But following the defense’s application, Snow said the CAA was trying to use the criminal justice system for “improper reasons” and that he would have refused to issue the subpoena if he had been presented with all the information.
The ruling, handed down at Westminster magistrates’ court on Tuesday, said the CAA had “attempted to use the criminal justice system for improper reasons in this case”.
Snow said the summary of Bachram’s tweet in the application case summary was “completely inadequate.”
He added: “He did not set out the extent of his tweets towards Reginald Hunter in the period immediately preceding the complaints (his tweets were sent between 15 August and 11 September 2024). The summary misled me into believing that his comments were directed at his relationship with the Jewish faith, as opposed to his response to attempts to ‘cancel’ him.”
Hunter’s lawyer, Rebecca Chalkley KC, told the court at Tuesday’s hearing that “very little was explained” and a “lack of candor” meant the summons should be quashed.
He told the judge: “You are led to believe, on the papers before you, that the CAA is nothing more than a charity, that it has no history as a vexatious litigant, has no complaints and has no criticism in parliament, as has since been proven.”
He accused the CAA of “using the courts for their own political agenda”.
CAA prosecutor Donal Lawler told the hearing that the charity had fulfilled its duty of honesty.
