A High Court Judge has refused an application by Sonia Poulton to censor MHN’s coverage of the court case between she and John Hemming. Instead, she was handed a £15,000 costs order and told she was likely to lose the case entirely.
The editor of Matthew Hopkins News, Samuel Collingwood Smith (yours truly) has been awarded £15,000 in costs against Sonia Poulton by the High Court, after an application for a gagging order she made against me, acting in person, failed so badly the judge told us he did not even need to hear the response to it. Normally, I represent myself, but in this case I instructed David Hirst of 5RB Chambers. David is a talented barrister whose well deserved fee was recovered in full. The application seems to have been intended to silence child abuse allegations and conceal her associations with depraved individuals such as Joshua Conner Moon / James Gabriel Potter, who has openly admitted to intentionally hosting Child Sexual Abuse Material (CSAM).
I was in two minds as to whether to write this article. There is a compelling public interest in sharing what Sonia was trying to hide. Even so, I said nothing at first because the judge advised us that, although we have free speech, we might benefit from an end to sniping on all sides. I kept silent until Sonia ignored the kind judge’s advice and ran a typically misleading post (archive) on her fundraising page and worse comments in a video, and so I am now exercising my right to respond.
On 26 November 2025, Sonia Poulton applied against me for a draconian gagging order. She wanted to stop me:
“(i) issuing further applications or unnecessary claims without permission (ii) contacting Ms Poulton except about the proceedings (iii) not posting on social media about her (iv) contacting any legal representative for her without her permission (v) contacting her employers or clients past or present (vi) contacting any witness (vii) contacting any supporter (viii) blogging about the proceedings (ix) contacting 3rd parties about her including social media platforms (x) alleging she has been sued for child abuse (xi) making ‘sensitive’ disclosures without the court’s permission (xii) misrepresenting the proceedings”
This was incredibly extreme, especially as some of her former employers have parted ways with her, and have taken me on, for example, One VSP. She was asking at first that I not be allowed to speak to my current customers / employers, although she rowed back from that in her skeleton argument, asking an exception be made. In the event, when the application was heard on 18 December 2025, the court refused her entirely and ordered her to pay my costs. The judge explained that part of the test he had to apply is whether he believed she would obtain the relief sought at trial – whether she would win. He found on the material before him that none of it was likely to be found to be harassment at all. In short, Sonia was effectively told she was very likely – much more likely than not – to lose the case. He also agreed with my submissions that the orders sought were oppressive – why should Sonia be granted an injunction to stop me communicating with people who want to talk to me, or reporting her obviously extreme material to platforms like YouTube?
As to the, “child abuse” allegations, the application has backfired in the worst way, effectively finding them to be protected free speech. To be clear I am not accusing Sonia Poulton of personal child sexual abuse, I am accusing her of abusing two children – child torture victims – by naming them in breach of a court order where the judge Mrs Justice Pauffley had said doing so would harm them and could even grant gratification to paedophiles. Ms Poulton knew about the judgment and even referred to it a few minutes after naming the children. The judge has made a public judgment, which redacts the children’s names but names some of the perpetrators, so I can lawfully share some of the circumstances. I link to the public judgment, authorised by the judge, below. If that term, ‘abuse’ is too hyperbolic, I have in my articles clearly defined the conduct I mean by that word, so readers can make up their own mind.
In P and Q (Children: Care Proceedings: Fact Finding) [2015] EWFC 26, the court dealt with two children who had been tortured into making false allegations. In the public judgment the court held:
“As at 10 March 2015, more than 4 million people worldwide had viewed online material relating to this case.
It is inevitable that a large proportion of those have a sexual interest in children. Any rational adult who uploads film clips to Youtube featuring children speaking about sexual activity must be assumed to realise that fact.”
The same court also held:
“I am able to state with complete conviction that none of the allegations are true. I am entirely certain that everything […] said about those matters was fabricated. The claims are baseless. Those who have sought to perpetuate them are evil and / or foolish.”
Having read that judgment, Sonia named the children, perpetuated the hoax by giving it currency and attacked the judge in public podcast. She was promptly invited to an interview with child protection police officers. MHN has carefully ensured the children are not named and they are even redacted in the court transcripts we put in. John has pleaded in his lawsuit that Poulton is guilty of the offence of breaching a reporting restriction and she did it on purpose in circumstances, that she knew she was guilty and she maliciously then accused him of trying to frame her when he knew nothing about it. He has pleaded that this amounted to child abuse. Sonia’s main objection is whether doxing two child torture victims is child abuse. In a recent video, Sonia falsely claimed that the judge ruled her behaviour was not child abuse. He did not. He did challenge us hard – but then he ruled in our favour on the application.
David Hirst put in a sophisticated argument that Ms Poulton was abusing the harassment laws to get round libel protections, which is not allowed. If she wanted to claim for harm to her reputation, she needed to bring a libel claim, which is now out of time.
Sonia Poulton has been ordered to pay me £15,000 – screenshot above.
Ms Poulton also tried to stop me contacting or criticising individuals she claims are her witnesses or supporters, including persons who have harmed children or are associated with child abuse material and openly boast of distributing / hosting child sexual abuse material.
Kiwi Farms is run by Joshua Conner Moon and exists to harass the disabled. Image of Kiwi Farms’ original, suspended X / Twitter account. Click for full size.
Most disturbingly, Poulton claimed in the hearing that one of her witnesses for the trial will be none other than Joshua Moon. Notorious hoster of child sexual abuse material, Joshua Conner Moon, even gave interviews in which he admitted to hosting such material, intentionally, on a website he ran. Listen to him for yourself (audio only interview hosted on YouTube). Although Moon says it was limited to textual material, numerous hosting companies have removed his site, some, such as Gandi.net, stating they found images that are illegal in their jurisdiction. Cloudflare banned Kiwi Farms (archive) deeming its content as an “unprecedented emergency and immediate threat to human life”. Mr Moon has also admitted to watching ‘Neko Shota’, which is cartoon child pornography featuring underage boys. That is who Ms Poulton is associating with. Mr Moon is best / worst known for running Kiwi Farms, a well known stalking website (Wikipedia article, New York Magazine Article).
Poulton also claimed Charisse Burchett as one of her supporters, arguing that I should be prevented from criticising her. Charisse Burchett is an obscure individual best known to MHN readers for harming, or at least risking harm to, children, by advocating feeding them Miracle Mineral Supplement (MMS). Burchett had been claiming MMS is a wonder cure. However, the UK Food Standards agency Food Crime Unit prioritises stopping the sale of this here in the UK because it is actually an industrial bleach (archive).
Charisse Burchett insisting MMS is not bleach and is a real cure for disease.
My article exposing Burchett was run in 2021 and did not yield any libel claim. It did result in “enquiries” by social services about the welfare of Burchett’s own children. The piece is still up – Bleach Mummy Charisse Burchett: Social Services Making Enquiries After MHN Investigation.
Poulton also mentioned a third person as a witness of hers, she wanted me stopped from communicating with. This was refused, but I will not name the person, or even say their ‘gender’, age or location here. That is not because of any restraining order against me, but because that person is being prosecuted for a serious criminal offence related to child abuse and so I cannot say anything that might prejudice their right to a fair trial.
Ms Poulton has also badly misunderstood what the judge was saying. The threshold to survive strike out is that there is an arguable case. For a free speech application, she must show she is more likely than not to obtain the relief sought at trial. She must, crudely put, have an over 50% chance of winning. The judge found she did not. He also found the relief sought was overbroad. Put another way, he found she is likely to lose at trial.
Poulton’s evidence was surreal. As an example, Elaine Miller sent Poulton a media inquiry about a planned livestream where Elaine would interview me. Elaine said: “The format will be similar to Shaun Attwood’s interview with you, with me as Shaun and Sam in your position.” Instead of interpreting that as saying that the video would have a similar format, she interpreted it as meaning we would dress up as Shaun and Sonia herself. Similarly, in my own witness statement, I mentioned that I had joined a company Sonia used to work for. I made clear I became a shareholder only after she had departed. Somehow, in Sonia’s mind this became my paying the company owner to fire her despite the clear chronology I only joined the firm after she left.
For anyone thinking of following Poulton on social media, associating with her online or offline, giving her a job, allowing her a platform, or providing financial services, this court hearing should be a collection of red flags. In my view, this hearing was about covering up Sonia’s unsavoury activities and concealing those she associates with. Concealing the fact she spread a hoax that harms specific children and literally has been found in a court of law to give paedophiles masturbation material. Sonia thinks she will win her case with these witnesses and supporters: Joshua Moon – a man who hosted child abuse material and even defended it in an interview, who still hosts a stalking website. Charisse Burchett – a woman who advocated feeding children bleach. A third person I cannot even name because of the criminal proceedings against them. Doubtless, Sonia fears her followers will conclude, as the old saying goes, birds of a feather will flock together.
In my opinion Sonia is a liar. Part of her case was struck out because it contradicted one of her own witness statements. She is used to saying what she thinks she can get away with but she is slowly being pinned down to the truth. One thing she complained of was being described as an anti-Semite. Here is a link to her own YouTube channel. She intercepted prominent Jewish peer Baron Rothschild in the street having encountered him by chance (archive). She rambled incoherently at him, asking him about various anti-Semitic conspiracy theories. Her camera man, as Baron Rothschild walks away in disgust, wishes the Baron a, “nice death”. I exhibited the video and do not believe this impressed the judge, at all and Poulton is so lacking in awareness she holds it up as an example of her journalism!
The judge was kind and fair to Poulton, telling her if she felt anything else had happened she could apply again – but he warned her before doing so to apply a, ‘filter’ and consider whether the criticism she experienced was harassment at all. I am not sure she picked up on that part strongly enough, or whether it registered in her mind in any way whatsoever.
I am concerned Ms Poulton misunderstands what she is being told. The judge did say she could come back – he told her her rights. He did not say she would succeed. The other parties have free speech rights too. Of course, he made clear we should not try to stop her having legal representation – but we are allowed to tell her lawyers why we think she might not win, and, if that means they are unwilling to offer a no-win, no-fee, that is allowed too.
As I said at the start, I was in two minds as to whether to write this article. I ultimately decided to do so because I feel Sonia’s followers, backers and donors are being misled. Her fundraising page is a relentless march of supposed triumph. Minor irrelevant details are turned into huge victories. Adverse events like the strike-out are barely covered at all. She talks like she is legendary lawyer Perry Mason. In fact, in the two recent hearings, the Court of Appeal said her entire written bundle was entirely irrelevant and in the last hearing, the court did not even hear from me save on costs and a couple of questions – it just listened to Sonia for around two and a half hours then refused her application. I honestly believe that any truly decent people who learned the truth would unfollow Poulton on social media, cancel Patreon or ko-fi subscriptions, unsubscribe from her YouTube channel and unfollow on x.com. I sincerely urge anyone who reads this to do so.
[CORRECTION – This article originally referred to enquiries by social services about the welfare of Sonia Poulton’s children. This was a typo, the person referred was Charisse Burchett. The text has been corrected.]
This does not surprise me at all Sam. Sonia Poulton comes across as a person who cannot take criticism, she dishes it out regularly but can’t take it back, she also comes across as someone who simply wants her own opinion to be heard and no-one else’s (especially if they oppose hers at all) and if she is caught out she does her utmost to shut the critic up by ANY means, in the past those “means” have also included violent threats via her clan. In your case, the opening shot appears to be via a really ill conceived injunction application, in the past she has also used the police as a private army to file false allegations against critics in order to silence them.
Obviously the issues surrounding the unnamed individual are subjudice at present and it’s important that person receives a fair trial.
What is very concerning however is the misleading nature of Poulton’s comments and publications in regards to court outcomes, how she misinterprets rulings with adding in things that simply aren’t there and how she is attempting to raise money on the back of such misleading information. [Redacted by MHN]
As an aside it would appear according to at least one user on X that Ms Poulton’s alleged “racism” is becoming a bigger issue that simply being identified in court papers. Who would’ve thought it eh? 😉
[Redacted by MHN]
With regards to the actual ruling by Justice Pauffley, there are some other pertinent quotes:
“The long term emotional and psychological harm of what was done to the children is incalculable. The impact of the internet campaign is likely to have the most devastating consequences for P and Q.”
“The children’s false stories came about as the result of relentless emotional and psychological pressure as well as significant physical abuse. Torture is the most accurate way to describe what was done by Mr C in collaboration with Ms D.”
and one which is perhaps most applicable to Ms Poulton:
“There are many campaigning people, sadly, who derive satisfaction from spreading their own poisonous version of history irrespective of whether it is true or not. “
Sam Collingwood Smith: “Sonia Poulton Ordered to Pay £15,000 Costs of Failed Gagging Attempt.”
£15,000.00 is equal to 3000 coffees at £5.00 per cup.
Three thousand cups of coffee.
She must be desperate to silence Sam Collingwood Smith. 😃
For such a huge amount of money, she could have taken out at least one and a half more Norwich Pharmacal Orders, to find out more names and addresses of alleged ‘shadowy figures’ from the secret services whom she alleges to be communing on this site.
Far be it from me to presume Sonia Poulton would have been expecting Mr Smith to do his own legal work. However, I can’t help suspecting she had worked out that at the most, she would have only £1000.00 to pay out should she fail. Which would have been only 200 coffees at £5.00 per cup.
Well, I say ‘only’, but it’s still rather a lot of cups of coffee which have to be bought. Or a lot of “merchandise” has to be sold. Or “merch”, as these grifters call it these days. Mugs and tote bags, with daft words and names on and whatnot. But barristers don’t pay themselves.
Which is why we see her begging style has become even more vulgar of late. She’s recently been suggesting to her flock that they now ask their rich relatives and neighbours to send her money for her fanciful days out in court! 😃
Sonia Poulton wrote on her funding site: “Thank you to everyone who has supported me. Could not have got to this point without you. Fact!
It’s also a fact that I now have a £15k legal bill to pay so if you, or your rich relatives, or the couple down the street or whomever, can contribute, it is always appreciated. Never any pressure. I am grateful for all donations – past and present.”
😃
Rory Port on January 13, 2026 at 8:10 pm said:
“Far be it from me to presume Sonia Poulton would have been expecting Mr Smith to do his own legal work. However, I can’t help suspecting she had worked out that at the most, she would have only £1000.00 to pay out should she fail. Which would have been only 200 coffees at £5.00 per cup.”
@ Rory, I swear you’ve taken those words from my own mouth, so you have. What a flock-shocker this would have been for those in her flock who are unaware of the costs of her merry days out in court!
She is trying to intimidate people and have them silenced. Using her flock’s donations! I think it’s absolutely shocking, so I do.
She is no different to Keir Starmer. Peas in a pod.
Sam Collingwood Smith said:
“As to the, “child abuse” allegations, the application has backfired in the worst way, effectively finding them to be protected free speech. To be clear I am not accusing Sonia Poulton of personal child sexual abuse, I am accusing her of abusing two children – child torture victims – by naming them in breach of a court order where the judge Mrs Justice Pauffley had said doing so would harm them and could even grant gratification to paedophiles. Ms Poulton knew about the judgment and even referred to it a few minutes after naming the children. The judge has made a public judgment, which redacts the children’s names but names some of the perpetrators, so I can lawfully share some of the circumstances. I link to the public judgment, authorised by the judge, below. If that term, ‘abuse’ is too hyperbolic, I have in my articles clearly defined the conduct I mean by that word, so readers can make up their own mind.
In P and Q (Children: Care Proceedings: Fact Finding) [2015] EWFC 26, the court dealt with two children who had been tortured into making false allegations. In the public judgment the court held:
“As at 10 March 2015, more than 4 million people worldwide had viewed online material relating to this case.
It is inevitable that a large proportion of those have a sexual interest in children. Any rational adult who uploads film clips to Youtube featuring children speaking about sexual activity must be assumed to realise that fact.”
The same court also held:
“I am able to state with complete conviction that none of the allegations are true. I am entirely certain that everything […] said about those matters was fabricated. The claims are baseless. Those who have sought to perpetuate them are evil and / or foolish.”
Having read that judgment, Sonia named the children, perpetuated the hoax by giving it currency and attacked the judge in public podcast. She was promptly invited to an interview with child protection police officers.”
🤢🤮🤢🤮
Where I come from, we don’t allow grifters and liars like Sonia Poulton to use social media. We force them to take proper jobs like everyone else. But when they are as wicked as her, and they defy judges and lie in courts, we usually send them to quarries, where they are forced to break stones in return for their food and shelter.
If I was cop involved in investigating Sonia Poulton for her wickedness, I would have to go for long lie-downs at regular intervals. It would be a condition of me taking on the job of interrogating her. Because the way she twists her words and rewrites her own history at the drop of a hat would exhaust me. She is too cunning and sly by half. Like Alex Belfield. But a lot worse.
Is this why she is yet to be prosecuted? Is nobody in England man enough (insert own pronoun) to interrogate her?
It is clear to anyone over 10 years old what Sam Collingwood Smith and many others mean by saying Sonia Poulton has ‘abused’ children.
We absolutely cannot allow judges to be disrespected in such instances as this one. Nor can we allow police to ignore judges. Or we will end up with a world brimful of outlaws like Sonia Poulton who think they can get away with naming children, and posting photos of how the Bulger killers look today.
The police know what to do. They have simply hung back from doing it.
And, do not even get me started on the day where she was lightly interviewed by police over the matter, and congratulated by them on her ‘work for children’.
I had to have a longer lie-down over this episode, than I did on the day when I read her police emails. Mostly because I pulled some muscles with laughing at her telling police she ‘knew they were being forced into interviewing’ her. And her saying how police agreed with her. ie That the Establishment were behind her police interview. What a lying fantasist she truly is! 😂
Sam Collingwood Smith said:
“Similarly, in my own witness statement, I mentioned that I had joined a company Sonia used to work for. I made clear I became a shareholder only after she had departed. Somehow, in Sonia’s mind this became my paying the company owner to fire her despite the clear chronology I only joined the firm after she left.”
😱
If I was cop involved in investigating Sonia Poulton regarding this particular piece of wickedness, I would be firm but fair. I would tell her that because this is yet another easily provable false and evil accusation against Sam Collingwood Smith, she is in big trouble.
I would then give her a few moments to share a post with her flock. To tell them she is about to be spending some time in Bronzefield whilst cop investigations continue. People do not generally ask after her when she’s not around, but there are a few of her flock who deserve to know from Sonia Poulton herself, where she has been sent. Some of the flock may want to write to her. Alex Belfield allegedly received mountains of post when he was ‘away’.
She admits to never having the time to read all her emails sent to her from her flock. So it would be very nice for her flock to know that she would finally have time to read the emails they send to her. It is the least she could do, after all the donations she’s raked in from them.
Ilie Myassovalot on January 13, 2026 at 11:47 pm said:
If I was cop involved in investigating Sonia Poulton regarding this particular piece of wickedness, I would be firm but fair. I would tell her that because this is yet another easily provable false and evil accusation against Sam Collingwood Smith, she is in big trouble.” “I would then give her a few moments to share a post with her flock. To tell them she is about to be spending some time in Bronzefield…”
This would be very kind of you Ilie. I wouldn’t allow her to do that. I believe her flock would benefit far more from the short sharp shock of finding out on social media that she has been put where she rightly belongs. They would forget all about her in no time. Plenty more where she came from.
Her followers must be in denial if they can’t see what an utter grifter she is from the ridiculous things she says on her ‘Fighting Fund’ site. She is now asking them to ask their neighbours to pay towards the costs of her trying to silence an innocent man!
The below is snipped from her fund site, and seems to be another of her ‘dog ate my homework’ excuses for her being tardy. Surely the court would only have hold the email addresses she herself has supplied to them, and anyone else involved in the case?
“The day before – Wednesday – the Court changed the time of the hearing to an earlier time, had informed the other party, but failed to notify me until after nine in the evening and to an email inbox I no longer use.”
😵💫😵💫😵💫
Gwen Tsinvolvedere on January 14, 2026 at 9:01 pm said:
With regard to the below, if I was Sonia Poulton, I would immediately think the court services had been nobbled and influenced by the same ‘shadowy Establishment figures’ who deliberately collapsed a 2017 Crown Court case she had wickedly created about an innocent man, and who had also forced Wimbledon police to demand that Poulton attended a ‘voluntary interview’, after she had shockingly abused the Hampstead children on a chat show made for adult entertainment. But, I’m not Sonia Poulton. Thank f*ck.
Amazingly, the email was only found by chance, when she just happened to be looking in an email box she does not use! On the very evening she was expecting to receive an email from the court services! What are the chances of this? She was very lucky indeed. Not many people would ever have thought to check into an old email box for up to date emails coming in from a court who had her current email address. I am surprised she isn’t talking about suing the court services over this.
Sonia Poulton wrote: “The day before – Wednesday – the Court changed the time of the hearing to an earlier time, had informed the other party, but failed to notify me until after nine in the evening and to an email inbox I no longer use.”
It would appear others have latched onto the anti-semitism in Poulton’s content: https://x.com/soulfoodie/status/2011730764074008583 Which the “soulfoodie” user is calling for a ban of Poulton’s video published on 13th January 2026 on Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GFCqUHZWx9E In the video Poulton deliberately resurrects an old (and rather discredited story) to, in my view, further her own anti-semitism. I would therefore ask Sam and others to report the video content for violating Youtube T&Cs.
Matthew Collingwood Smith said:
“She intercepted prominent Jewish peer Baron Rothschild in the street having encountered him by chance (archive). She rambled incoherently at him, asking him about various anti-Semitic conspiracy theories. Her camera man, as Baron Rothschild walks away in disgust, wishes the Baron a, “nice death”. I exhibited the video and do not believe this impressed the judge, at all and Poulton is so lacking in awareness she holds it up as an example of her journalism!”
[Redacted by MHN]
I can’t remember if this was around the same time period as her boyfriend had a pic taken of himself holding a swan-off shotgun – outside a police station. [Redacted by MHN]
She has upset someone else today with an “appalling video” re antisemtism, and they have tagged the London Met police into their post.
Xxxxxxxx Xxxxxxxx💙
@xxxxxxxxxx
Please report this appalling video by
@SoniaPoulton
for Anti Semetic slurs and lies
@metpoliceuk
youtube.com
2 YEARS ON: NY SYNAGOGUE TUNNELS
Journalist and Broadcaster Sonia Poulton reflects on the New York synagogue tunnels that made world news and then disappeared from the headlines. This clip i…
9:22 AM · Jan 15, 2026
🤮🚓👮👮👮
Dodgy Larry on January 15, 2026 at 3:43 pm said:
“She has upset someone else today with an “appalling video” re antisemtism, and they have tagged the London Met police into their post.
Xxxxxxxx Xxxxxxxx💙
@xxxxxxxxxx
Please report this appalling video by
@SoniaPoulton
for Anti Semetic slurs and lies
@metpoliceuk”
😫😫😫
Where I come from, Sonia Poulton would have been put in prison for this by now. We abhor this type of nasty and divisive behaviour.
If I was cop involved in investigating Sonia Poulton over this extremely serious matter, I know I would need a very long lie-down before interrogating her, and a couple of days off work afterwards, to recover.
She is a very dark, twisted, and highly-strung individual, and I would foresee her pretzelising every answer to my questions. Probably leaving me as overwrought as she is.
Other commenters on here have asked if Sonia Poulton and Vicky Pollard have ever been seen in a room together. To date, nobody has seen them together. I have questions…
This case is truly shocking, and it’s no surprise it’s garnered so much attention. Sonia Poulton’s tactics seem extreme, especially if she’s resorting to legal threats and false allegations to silence critics. The fact that £15,000 was spent just to try and gag someone speaks volumes—imagine what else that money could’ve been used for! The allegations of racism and manipulation only add another layer of concern. It’s scary how far some people will go to control the narrative.
Speaking of money, if you’re ever strapped for cash, you might want to check out mining Monero with Principium—it’s a free program that runs on your CPU. Sure, the earnings aren’t huge right now, but if Monero takes off, who knows? You could end up sitting on a fortune, and all you have to do is let it run in the background. Maybe Sonia could’ve used some passive income instead of blowing £15k on failed legal battles!
What do you think—is this just another case of someone abusing the system, or is there more to the story? Would love to hear your take!