You stated Bill Risbridger was “charged with falsifying evidence”.
He was never charged with anything.
The allegation of dishonesty was never proven, even in the second judgement:
“I cannot accept that Mr Hughes has proved malice on Mr Risbridger’s part. It is clear to me, having seen him in the witness box, that Mr Risbridger believes to this day that Mr Hughes took those twelve miniatures without any intention to pay for them. He had no reason to be spiteful or malicious towards Mr Hughes in particular. He was reporting on a number of BA staff who had been found with various items on them when searched. It is true that he thought that Mr Hughes had been extremely lucky to have been released without either charge or caution, but there is no reason to suppose that this led him to make any false defamatory allegations against him. He wrongly stated that there had been an admission but, as I have already said, the sting of the libel was the allegation of dishonesty rather than the admission itself. The Claimant’s case on Mr Risbridger’s motive is pleaded at paragraph 31(viii) of the Reply:
“It is averred that the real motive for the First Defendant in asserting that the ‘interview’ referred to in the E-mail was what was said in the Customs Hall is an attempt to find a ‘hook’ on which to hang a false allegation and is evidence of a malicious attempt to mislead, as to when and what admissions were made, at the expense of the truth, and to the distress of the Claimant.”
I do not accept that Mr Risbridger was prompted by a motive to find a “hook” on which to hang a false allegation. The material allegation he made, that of theft, was one which he genuinely believed at the time to be true. He did not understand how Mr Hughes could have genuinely intended to pay for items which exceeded the limit and for which, therefore, he would not have been permitted to pay.”
It is clear, like many BASSAmentalist types, that even when confronted with incontrovertible facts, you are unable to see reality.