Houses of Parliament Select Committee Interview and extra evidence

http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Embed/js.ashx?10059 460×322

Background
I had had a relationship spanning 28 years with Jeremy Clarkson. I met him when I was 17, and lived with him continuously from that age, and married, and then parted when I was 26. We both felt that this was an erroneous mistake, but circumstances, youthful naiveity and other influences meant that being a couple was no longer was an option, although serious discussions over reconciliation for 2 years post parting occurred on 3 occasions. We went our separate ways. We had no children together. We married other partners.
After the inevitable breakdown of my second marriage, even though three attempts were made to retrieve its status quo for the sake of our children, (its demise was a direct result of feelings I still maintained for JC, his rising fame and frequency on TV and in the media, and my husband’s (in hindsight) excusable inability to be able to deal with this), Jeremy and I renewed an intimate relationship on his initiation. Very few people were aware of this.
An anonymised injunction was served on me via text, email and in person (the next day), after discussions with JC of my intentions to write a book. He had taken (through the BBC) a similar view on Ben Collins’ (The Stig) wish to write an autobiography.

Effects of you being subject to an anonymised injunction?

The experience of being challenged by means of an injunction are traumatic. I have always believed myself to be an “ordinary” person, but in extra-ordinary circumstances. My apparently confident appearance has always conflicted with my naturally inherent, shy but open personality. The injunction faces you with a very steep set of circumstances. After reading the injunction and the witness statement attached to it, my first reaction and concern was for him, as this injunction had clearly been granted on what I knew to be untruths. I texted him to say as much.

Ignorance, Financial and Threat of Jail

The terms of the injunction itself were draconian placing me (the defendant) in an onerous, costly and frightening situation in order to be in compliance with it. The term of five days to respond through a lawyer or face jail being a case in point. Also it seems to cut off any other route with regards of seeking less expensive or friendly advice due to non disclosure requirements. In this case seeking advice from my divorce lawyers, an obvious choice for an ignorant ordinary layperson, who took on the case faced me with a bill of £10,000, still unpaid, before it was obvious that they were also not qualified to deal effectively with this type of legal challenge. I believe they should have directed and referred me to a specialist, but they chose not to, leading me to believe that they had experience in this field. It transpired that they did not, and I instinctively knew that if I wished to contest the injunction I had to find an alternative specialist. The fact that this set of circumstances exists can result in a ‘financially’ more powerful person intimidating a person as a potential source of conflict back into oblivion. To comply with the injunction is mandatory, to challenge it requires determination and bravery a solution finding mind. There is no adequate guidance provided for the layman to understand the laws that are pertinent to such an action except through a lawyer and the fact that a witness statement, judicially untested, can be the source of such a responsiblity in law seems unfair. The only recourse in this case was to find a lawyer either to take it on pro bono or on a no-win-no-fee basis. Again requiring the determination and imagination of a defendant in a less than proficient circumstances.

Threats, Manipulation, Dishonesty, Abuse, Slander, Reputation, Children

It being understood, that there was a contestable situation, requiring absolute honest disclosure on both sides prior to judgement, to allow due process to occur, is on the face of it right. The fact that this can (and was), be abused manipulatively, by either side, but in this case by the Claimant, through preducial and personally defamatory ascertions in the nature of blackmail and fortune hunting, in the community has resulted in an extra set of woes, chagrin and detriment. Even though an injunction was in place, he threatened me in his initiated telephone calls and told me that ‘I would lose my house fighting this’. The fact that in an anonymous injunction skeletal information is also available to the public leads to a inciting curiosity by media and public alike. The result of this for me has lead to widespread commentary and unchallengable opinions taking root in the community both locally and at large. This is tangible and it IS possible to quantify. This has personally lead to polarisation of attitude, social ostracisation or unresolved awkwardness in sectors of my community and with my family. My oldest friend knew of the injunction’s existence within hours (from his side). Also detrimental and embarrassing awareness of this amongst my sons’ communities, huge concern, stress and mental and financial exhaustion. So much so that I also became depressed and am still suffering with depression, and I felt I had to move away rather than face an unbearable and erosive situation at home. Again this was only possible through the help of a friend. The composite effect of dealing with this aggressive action, the legalities, my response to it, and the fall out has been such that not only could I no longer effectively run my own business, but had to prioritise time and effort into mounting a defence in order to clear this whole mess. The result of this has also meant renting my house to create income to replace earnings, the resulting move of my sons to their father’s address , which has been harrowing for me, disturbing for them and to add injury to insult , the opportunity for their father to exploit this by his withdrawal of child support contribution which if I wish to have re-instated I have to seek costly legal advice. In one conversation I had with JC when the injunction furore was at its height (just before the Ryan Giggs one was publicized), when I asked him if he would like to meet to discuss a way forward, he told me that there ‘would be No Court; there would be No Trial, and that he would ‘fight it out in the press’ and he said ‘he would go first’. In the same conversation he said that the only way forward for him was that he ‘would have to deny it until the end of time’.

He is quoted as saying that he lifted the injunction because it was ‘expensive and pointless’. I believe the reason he lifted the injunction was because my lawyers were forcing him to trial, and it was less onerous to to fight it out in the papers with his clout than to be found for perjury in a Court of law.

Freedom of Speech vs Privacy

Pertinent also to the wider picture and my consideration were, that I felt I had a right to write a book which as discussed with JC was going to respect intimate details and concentrate on a compelling disturbing story of the issues of living in the shadow of a famous person had had and of having unwanted, uninvited, uncourted notoriety and infamity as a result, and the repercussions, knock on effects and consequences to my life and that of my childrens as a result of this. A for instance, the fact that I have brought up my children as a financially struggling single mother is as a direct result of his fame. As the father of my children could not deal with it or the results of what it was doing to me and left. The mere idea of ‘moving on’ and ‘closure’ are simply not attainable, as I probably hear his name, not by courting it or seeking it out, every single day of my ordinary life, whether it be an advert on the underground, a radio DJ discussing his show, or merely a friend saying they had read his article in The Sunday Times, and what did I think. In my book, I was also going to invite other stories from women or maybe even men in similar circumstances in order to create an anthology of this subject. I saw this as being of interest to the public, and that I had a right to do this, that it had commercial value, whist maintaining a respect for his privacy and sensitive material. I still maintain this is my right.

Moral Dilemma, Duty of Care, Honour

I do however have a moral dilemma. The moral issue is extremely uncomfortable. It is now magnified out of all proportion. I did not put the proposition of an alledged ex marital affair, as has unfortunately been suggested in JC’s witness statement, into the public domain, nor was I going to allude to one in my book. These have unfortunately become part of a contestible truth through the witness statement and my legal and personal obligation to the truth as a result of this legal process. The furore that has come with that, now that the injunction has been lifted and statements seen, is one that has created more embarrasment and sits very uneasily with me, as 1. it was never my wish to expose such 2. It is an intensely private matter. 3. I am not by several benchmarks morally proud either, but personal and intimate lives can concensually go down unusual paths and test one’s conscience according to the benefits or damage created by any chosen course of behaviour, this is definitely a case now of misadventure but before a warm gentle repatriation of emotion of much resource to both parties.

MP Dobbs questioned whether married people have a moral obligation to one another. I believe they do. I believe they have a duty of care. I believe I have respected that, and had a diligent duty of care and honour for over 28 years towards my ex-husband, only to discover that this was not being reciprocated in any form whatsoever, and it was becoming to my detriment and psychological health.

This aspect anyway is not the subject of review, rather it underlines the downside and complexities that can result from this aggressive injunction process, which as of yet has no ‘friendly’ mediation process. And that is the only point I wish to make and rise from this.

It leaves for me to say that I am still left embattled, unstable psychologically, financially and practically, fighting for my livelihood and for my children to return to a home they can call home.