CONTENT:
Public court records documented by journalist Neil Wilby reveal pattern of civil court findings against Paul Arthur Ponting, 54, of Ormskirk, resulting in permanent injunctions and substantial legal costs exceeding £56,000.
All Information: Public court records, civil court judgments, reporting by Neil Wilby
Financial Impact: Legal Costs Analysis
1. Lancashire Constabulary Civil Injunction (March 2020)
Case: Lancashire Police v. Ponting
Court: Civil proceedings under Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act, 2014
Outcome: Permanent injunction granted to Lancashire Constabulary
Costs Ordered:
- Lancashire Police costs: £30,000
- Ponting's own costs: Estimated £5,000-£10,000
- Total: £35,000-£40,000
Injunction Terms: According to court records, order places "considerable restrictions" on Ponting's contact with Lancashire officers, either online or in person.
Significance: Police force successfully obtained permanent court order restricting individual's behavior toward officers.
2. Two Lawyers Civil Claim (April 2024)
Case: Two Greater Manchester lawyers v. Ponting
Court: Civil stalking and harassment claim
Outcome: Ponting lost case
Costs and Damages: £26,640 Injunction: Permanent "until further order" injunction imposed
Significance: Two legal professionals successfully sued Ponting for stalking and harassment. Permanent injunction suggests court found ongoing risk requiring indefinite restrictions.
Total Financial Impact
Minimum costs: £56,640 in legally ordered payments
Maximum costs: £66,640 (including Ponting's own legal costs in Lancashire case)
Additional: Legal costs for defending charges, representing self in proceedings
Pattern: Substantial financial consequences resulting from court findings regarding Ponting's behavior toward others.
The Permanent Injunctions
Injunction 1: Lancashire Constabulary Order (2020)
Nature: Permanent civil injunction
Basis: Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act, 2014
Restrictions: Limits contact with Lancashire police officers online and in person
Duration: Permanent (no expiration date)
Context: Police force sought and obtained court order restricting individual's behavior. Civil injunction indicates pattern of conduct requiring legal intervention beyond criminal system.
Injunction 2: Two Lawyers Order (2024)
Nature: Permanent "until further order" injunction
Basis: Civil stalking and harassment findings
Restrictions: Not publicly detailed (standard practice in harassment injunctions)
Duration: Indefinite (until court determines otherwise)
Context: Legal professionals obtained protection order. "Until further order" language suggests court determined ongoing risk requiring indefinite restrictions.
Judge's Assessment: "Practiced and Determined Liar"
According to Neil Wilby's reporting on court documents:
Quote: Circuit judge in civil proceedings referred to Paul Ponting as "practiced and determined liar in almost every aspect of his life"
Significance: Judicial finding regarding credibility. Judges don't use such language lightly. Suggests pattern of dishonesty presented to court requiring explicit judicial comment.
Impact: Credibility finding by circuit judge becomes part of public record. Future proceedings may reference judicial assessment of truthfulness.
Pattern Analysis: Multiple Courts, Multiple Years
Timeline of Court Involvement:
March 2020: Lancashire Police obtain permanent injunction, £30,000 costs
March 2023: Arrested by Greater Manchester Police on stalking/harassment/assault allegations
April 2024: Loses civil case to two lawyers, £26,640 costs, permanent injunction
May 2024: Charged with stalking with fear of violence (Section 4)
June 2025: Trial scheduled Preston Crown Court
Pattern Identified:
- Multiple courts (civil and criminal jurisdictions)
- Multiple years (2020-2025)
- Multiple complainants (police force, lawyers, female complainant in criminal case)
- Multiple findings requiring judicial intervention
- Escalating severity (civil injunctions → criminal charges)
The Accountability Irony
Ponting's Public Position: Operates "UK Corrupt Police" website. Positions self as accountability campaigner exposing police corruption.
Court Reality:
- Police force obtained permanent injunction against him
- Called "practiced and determined liar" by judge
- £56,640+ in legal costs ordered
- Multiple courts found behavior requiring restriction
- Now facing criminal trial for stalking
The Disconnect: Individual claiming to hold others accountable repeatedly found by courts to require legal restrictions on own behavior.
Social Media Suspensions
Beyond court findings, Ponting's accounts suspended by platforms:
Twitter/X: Account suspended according to Neil Wilby reporting. Platform found privacy breaches and abuse violations per May 30, 2023 findings.
WhatDoTheyKnow: Freedom of Information request platform suspended Ponting's account stating "You have repeatedly misused our service."
Pattern: Even platforms designed for accountability and transparency found Ponting's behavior crossed lines requiring account suspension.
Current Obligations
As of October 2025, Ponting subject to:
- Two permanent civil injunctions restricting behavior
- Criminal bail conditions including no contact with complainant and no social media posting about complainant
- £56,640 minimum in court-ordered costs and damages
- Pending criminal trial June 2025 on serious charges
Public Interest Considerations
Why Document This?
Accountability: Individual operating websites claiming to expose others' conduct has own conduct repeatedly requiring court intervention.
Pattern Recognition: Multiple courts across multiple years making similar findings suggests systematic issue rather than isolated incidents.
Financial Consequences: Over £56,000 in legal costs demonstrates real consequences for behavior courts found problematic.
Judicial Assessment: Circuit judge's description of Ponting as "practiced and determined liar" is unusually direct judicial language warranting public awareness.
Ongoing Proceedings: Criminal trial pending. Public entitled to know about charges and previous court findings.
Legal Protections for This Article
Public Record: All court proceedings, judgments, and orders are matters of public record
Legitimate Journalism: Information from investigative journalist Neil Wilby's documented court reporting
Factual Reporting: No opinions or allegations. Simple documentation of court findings and judicial statements.
Public Interest: Courts have determined individual's behavior warrants restrictions. Public interest in understanding pattern of judicial findings.
Protected Speech: Reporting on court proceedings and judicial findings fully protected under UK law.
Sources
- Neil Wilby investigative journalism (neilwilby.com)
- Lancashire Constabulary civil court proceedings (March 2020)
- Civil court judgment re: two lawyers (April 2024)
- Preston Crown Court proceedings (ongoing)
- Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act, 2014
- Protection from Harassment Act, 1997
- Public court records and judgments
Paul Ponting cannot DMCA this article: Factual reporting on public court records. All information from documented judicial proceedings and legitimate journalism. Fully protected speech.