Nottingham Forest owner sues Crystal Palace over ‘gun banner’
by: Adham Harker
August 13, 2026
On 20 November 2025, Mrs Justice Collins Rice handed down judgment in Garrett v Schestowitz and Schestowitz [2025] EWHC 3063 (KB).
The Claimant Matthew Garrett is a free software activist, software engineer, and computer security expert. The Defendants Dr Roy Schestowitz and Mrs Rianne Schestowitz are a married couple who each publish extensively on the subject of free software (and other topics) on their blogs, Techrights and Tuxmachines. Mr Garrett issued libel proceedings over a sustained and lurid campaign of defamatory publications on Techrights and Tuxmachines, which accused him of, amongst other things, criminality (including that he had abused, harassed, and blackmailed many people, sent death threats, and was a user of crack cocaine), and that he had widely published grossly offensive material in harassing the defendants (which included misogynistic, racist, homophobic, or paedophiliac language). Mr Garrett strenuously denied the truth of all of the allegations.
Mr Garrett’s claim succeeded after a trial over two days in October 2025. The Defendants’ truth, public interest, and honest opinion defences all failed, with Mrs Justice Collins Rice finding that there was no evidential basis for any of them. A counterclaim against Mr Garrett for harassment was dismissed.
Mr Garrett was awarded £70,000 in damages. The Judge said in the absence of any indication that the Defendants would voluntarily desist from further defamation, remove the material objected to, and give satisfactory undertakings not to repeat the same or similar allegations, that it was appropriate for an injunction to be imposed compelling the removal of material/publication of further content. The Judge also ruled it would be appropriate to require the defendants to publish a summary of the judgment.
Matthew Garrett was represented by Adham Harker, Iain Wilson and Rebecca Ritchie, and Ben Hamer of 5RB
Related Services
- Defamed by the press
- Defamed on social media
- Defamed on television, radio or podcasts
- Defamed on X/Twitter – Twibel
- Defamed on TikTok
- Wrongly circulated as wanted by the media or on social media
- Defending a defamation claim
- IPSO press complaints
- IPSO arbitration procedure
- Responding to a request for comment by the media
- Inaccurate information on due diligence databases
- Norwich Pharmacal Orders – Identifying the Anonymous
- Privacy, Harassment and Defamation Injunctions
- Defamed on Facebook
- Defamed on YouTube
Recent Reported Cases
Legal Disclaimer
Articles are intended as an introduction to the topic and do not constitute legal advice
