Memorandum submitted by Elaine Maria
Decoulos
1. My name is Elaine
Maria Decoulos. I was borne and raised
in Massachusetts, USA. I have both
American and Greek citizenship. I have
lived in the UK for many years. I
attended The London School of Economics for post-graduate studies in Economics
and I have worked in The City of London.
I am currently unemployed because of ill health and my all too consuming
problems with the British press.
Currently residing in the U.S., I plan to return to the UK sometime in
March 2009.
2. Over
approximately the last five years, I have unfortunately had many problems with
the British press that have severely disrupted my life. I understand that the Committee does not
normally investigate individual cases of complaint. Nevertheless, my problems with the British
press are so serious and distressing I believe they need to be heard in the
context of this inquiry. Moreover, I
have had a number of problems trying to get justice in the English courts after
harassment litigation was used to create privileged occasions that gave the
press the opportunity to defame and then libel me. My problems also raise serious issues
regarding how the wealthy and well connected get preferential treatment by the
courts and the press, including violations of The European Convention of Human
Rights. Nearly all of my court hearings
have been held in private, apparently under Article 8 of The European
Convention, though there appears to be no precedent for it. Private hearings are against English court
procedure, English common law and Article 6 of The European Convention. It has gotten to the point that my human
rights, access to justice and due process have been so repeatedly ignored that
I feel it necessary to issue a complaint to Senator Kennedy's office here in
Massachusetts. Notwithstanding the
above, I will try to give a broad overview of the issues I raise and how they
affect press reporting, libel and human rights, while detailing the specific
problems I have encountered and continue to encounter in the courts and with
the press.
3. Firstly,
it is probably important for me to say that I am currently representing myself
in an ongoing libel claim against Associated Newspapers, one of their freelance
journalists, Rory Knight-Bruce, Bruno Schroder and Schroders plc over an
article that was published in The Daily Mail
on the 2nd August 2005 and on the internet. The article recently reappeared on the
internet after the date of publication was mysteriously changed from 2nd
August 2005 to 2nd August 2008.
This caused it to be re-syndicated to American websites and I find this
very disturbing indeed. I believe this
was done deliberately by a woman out to destroy me, Suzanne von Maltzahn, the
person who caused all this unnecessary pain and suffering to occur. She is the
long term partner of Bruno Schroder and was formerly a defendant in this
claim. Associated Newspapers and Rory
Knight-Bruce are represented by Reynolds Porter Chamberlain LLP Solicitors. Bruno Schroder and Schroders plc by Swan Turton
LLP Solicitors. I noticed the latter
will be giving oral evidence for this inquiry on the 24th February
2009. I previously succeeded in a libel
claim against Express Newspapers in December 2005 over an article published in
June 2004. I had another libel claim
against The Sunday Times that I initially tried to avoid by making a complaint
to the Press Complaints Commission.
After being extremely disappointed by their reply, I resorted to issuing
another claim, but served it a few hours too late, causing News International
to succeed in having it struck out in November 2007.
4. It
will be helpful if I provide the unfortunate background as to how I came to be
defamed by nearly every British newspaper and then libeled by several of
them. Back in November 2003, I made a
visit to the isle of Islay on the west coast of Scotland. I went there in the hope that Bruno Schroder,
who has an estate on the isle, would be there.
I was on my way from Massachusetts to Germany for medical treatment
because of several miscarriages I had while in a relationship with him. I was hoping he would be there so I could
discuss the matter with him.
Unfortunately, he was not there.
After a stay of four days, I left and stopped in London on my way to
Germany. Once in London, a friend
showed me a copy of that day's Daily Mail,
the 8th November 2003. To my
utter horror, there was an article about my visit to Islay and how Bruno
Schroder and his long term partner, Suzanne von Maltzahn, had taken court
proceedings against me in Scotland for harassment and obtained an interim
interdict against me. The title was
bad: "1.4 billion
baron stalked by pretty brunette" and the subtitle worse: "'Potentially violent' American is
banned from tycoon's island hideaway".
I was referred to as a stalker. I
later found out that every newspaper in Scotland and every Scottish edition of
the English papers had published a story on it.
Most of them referred to me as a 'potentially violent' stalker, which I
most certainly am not.
5. Trumped
up and false allegations were used to obtain the court ordered interim
interdicts, the Scottish equivalent of an English injunction. As those on the Committee will know, the
Scottish legal system is different to the English, and no Witness Statements
needed to be prepared. What was most
astounding was that I had complained for years to the Metropolitan Police in
London about Suzanne von Maltzahn and her sons harassing me while living in
London, culminating with the brakes being cut on my bicycle in September
2002. The fact that she was now accusing
me of harassing her and Bruno Schroder and then reading about it in the press
made me feel as if I was suddenly in a totalitarian state. How could they publish without hearing my
side of the story? I denied all the
allegations, but to this day, over five years later, no publication in Britain
has given me a right of reply to those allegations. It was not for want of trying. They all shied away.
6. In
December 2003, I went to The Court of Session in Edinburgh to request a court
hearing in the hope of having the interim interdict removed. Soon after my arrival, the 'potentially
violent' allegation was withdrawn, there being absolutely no evidence
whatsoever to substantiate it, even though it had by now been used to seriously
defame me across the British press and soon after, the internet, including
American websites that carried syndicated articles from British
newspapers. I proved other trumped up
and false allegations were untrue, such as that I entered Dunlossit House,
Bruno Schroder's residence on Islay, and that I was found to have rolls of film
in my bag after having apparently been searched. Rather, I proved I had used a disposable
camera to take a few photos and therefore had no rolls of film. In any event, no one searched my bag. It was all a pack of lies, yet much of it
ended up in every Scottish newspaper with no reply from me. I was indeed shocked that this could happen
to me in a civilised country with a long democratic tradition.
7. Once
I arrived at The Court of Session in Edinburgh, I tried to find out how the
court summons was leaked to the press. I
found out a copy was given to the one agency reporter and the Scotsman
reporter. The agency reporter informed
most of the press. The court staff told
me the contents of the summons and the granting of the interim interdict never
should have gotten into the press because the hearing was without notice to me
and I had no chance to reply. This was extremely
distressing to hear. I was therefore
determined to have the court hearing I was now requesting reported in the
press. Unbelievably, this was denied
me. I had informed both The Scotsman
reporter and the agency reporter of the hearing. The Scotsman reporter attended. My hearing was in front of Lord Bracadale on
the 19th December 2003.
Although Lord Bracadale did not order the hearing in private, he asked
the Scotsman reporter to leave. If he
did not, the hearing would be held in his chambers. There was quite a stand off. Finally, the reporter left. After the hearing I told him what happened,
but he was no longer willing to do a report because the Judge had asked him to
leave the courtroom. It was all very
distressing and most unfair to me because the story was already in the public
domain and I sought to finally have my side of the story heard after being
defamed across the British press. This
was unjustly denied me. This problem is
not unique to Scotland as I will soon explain.
The Daily Mail was willing to
consider doing a story and finally giving me a right of reply. They wanted me to first send them the Witness
Statement I had prepared for the hearing.
However, I was legally advised not to do so for fear of being in
contempt of court because the Judge has asked the reporter to leave. It was an impossible situation that was soon
to get worse. At the hearing, the
interim interdicts were reduced but remained until I put in a formal Defence
after Mr. Schroder officially filed the claim (lodge the summons for calling in
Scotland) or expired after one year, which is indeed what happened because Mr.
Schroder did not take it any further.
8. After
the court hearing in December 2003, I had believed that was the end of the
vexatious litigation, but I remained very concerned about clearing my name in
the press, worried that I would repeatedly and falsely be referred to as Bruno
Schroder's stalker whenever the press wrote about him and possibly his
firm. The stress of being called a
'potentially violent' stalker across the British press took its toll on
me. While visiting my sister in Panama
in January 2004, I developed a severe case of vertigo that lasted for two
months. If I had known what was to come
next, I might have chanced sending The Daily Mail
the statement I had prepared for the Scottish court hearing in the hope of
getting my side of the story published.
I was right to be concerned about what the press would publish when The
Mail on Sunday in their Rich Report in March 2004 said Mr. Schroder was like a
Hollywood star because he has a stalker.
They went on to say she was an American woman and that he had obtained a
court order against her in Scotland. I
was extremely distressed and worried. I
tried to get Mr. Schroder to tell the press I was not a stalker to no
avail. Then on the 22nd April
2004, after speaking to him for 101 minutes, at the end of which he said, "If I
do something else, you can cope", I was served an English injunction for
harassment in Massachusetts a few hours later.
It was indeed shocking, particularly when I read his Witness Statement
that I knew contained false evidence provided by his partner, Suzanne von
Maltzahn. I immediately believed, as I
had done in Scotland, that she had coerced him to do this to me. That remains my view and it is a sad state of
affairs. As unbelievable as it sounds, I
know and have been told by others that he lives in fear of her.
9. I
was seriously libeled twice soon after the English litigation commenced. First in The Daily and International Express
on the 1st June 2004, then in The Mail on Sunday on the 14th
June 2004, when I was used as an example as to why one may need stalking
insurance. Neither sought to contact me
for a right of reply. The English
injunction was discharged at my first appearance in front of a High Court Judge
and false evidence was indeed used to obtain it, as Witness Statements ordered
by Mr. Justice Holland proved. An
agreement was subsequently reached at a court hearing on the 2nd
March 2005, held in private against my wishes, English court procedure, common
law and Article 6 of The European Convention.
I was then pressured to keep the agreement sealed in the court file,
after being reassured that it could be unsealed if necessary. After being libeled again by The Daily Mail on the 2nd August 2005, after
seeking a right of reply, I have repeatedly tried to get the agreement unsealed
so that I will not be libeled again and to quickly resolve my current
claim. I need the agreement unsealed to
get an adequate correction and apology published.
10. I
currently have several libel claims outstanding regarding articles published
and syndicated by Associated Newspapers.
The main one over the 2nd August 2005 article published in
Richard Kay's column in The Daily Mail
is well explained in the one public judgment made by Mr. Justice Gray on 4th
April 2007. Besides Associated
Newspapers, there were initially three other defendants because Bruno Schroder
had given a quote that misrepresented the outcome of the harassment claim taken
out against me. I know him very well and
did not believe the words attributed to him were his words. I believed they were the words of James
Harcus, his solicitor at the time.
Knowing that Mr. Schroder initially said no comment and then phoned The Daily Mail back with the quote gave me more reason
to believe this. I submit that after The
Daily Mail phoned him for his reply,
that he then phoned Suzanne von Maltzahn and James Harcus and that the two of
them conspired to libel me. I still
stand by this, even though they have now been struck out. Bruno Schroder maintains that he was
misquoted. The Daily
Mail first told me they had tape recorded him, but now say
there is no tape and no notes.
11. The
Committee should know that after approaching several firms of solicitors, no
one would take this claim against The Daily Mail
on a CFA. I believe there are several
reasons for this, even though I succeeded in my claim against The Express on a
CFA and was libeled over the outcome of court proceedings, easy to prove with a
few court orders. Associated Newspapers
is known to be a more aggressive defendant and because Mr. Schroder provided a
quote I sought to include him as a defendant as well. That I sought to include other defendants did
not help, but I do not think it would have mattered. I only thought it fair to hold those I
believed libeled me to account. I did
not think it fair to hold Associated Newpapers solely liable. My kindness towards them is no longer
appreciated, for they are now going along with a strategy put forth by Rupert
Grey of Swan Turton. They are currently
seeking to have my claim against them stayed and struck out over costs. Several legal professionals have told me this
will not happen, but that is what I was told when Rupert Grey did just that
with my claim against Bruno Schroder. It
is currently stayed unless I pay costs of 25,000 pounds. And there is a pending application to have it
struck out for this reason as well, currently listed to be heard on the 12th/13th
March 2009. I believe this might be
unprecedented for a credible libel claim and is unjust. It is at the Judge's discretion, but is
against the Overriding Objective of the court on fairness as stated in Civil
Procedure Rule 1.0, English common law and Article 6 of The European Convention. That all my hearings bar one in this case
have been held in private is another violation of my human rights under Article
6, English common law and Civil Procedure Rule 39. My court files are also sealed from public
view using Article 8 for privacy in The European Convention. It is Suzanne von Maltzahn's privacy they are
protecting. Yet she is the one who
provided the false evidence to commence the litigation. Her privacy under Article 8 is being used to
grant the defendants private hearings as well. It has gotten so bad that I have resorted
to complaining to Senator Kennedy's office in Massachusetts. I am most unfairly being denied access to
justice when I have a very credible libel claim and have been defamed across
the British press. It is important for
the Committee to know that The European Court of Human Rights has now
determined that Article 8 includes a right to reputation. Details about this can be found on Swan
Turton's website.
12. I
have a few other libels claims having to with articles published by Associated
Newspapers that were syndicated to America and published on the internet. Two of them have had their copyright
criminally infringed to further defame and libel me. This is a serious matter indeed and I hope
the inquiry will look into this.
13. I
would like to add that I do not believe anybody should be allowed to sue in the
civil courts for harassment unless there has first been a successful criminal
prosecution for harassment. There is too
much potential for abuse. No one should
be accused of harassment in a civil claim and have it reported in the press
with no right of reply. Solicitors and
their clients can initially use trumped up allegations, false allegations and
false evidence to start a claim, as has happened to me. This is done without any checks and balances
from the police or Crown Prosecution Service.
In my case, one of the principal reasons it was done was to defame me in
the press and I am still fighting in the courts over five years later. This is unjust, against my human rights and
has been very painful indeed.
14. It
is a disgrace to the United Kingdom and the British press that an individual
can be defamed and libeled in the way I have been. What happened to me is a bit like what has
happened in the McCann case, though of course not as serious, but very damaging
nonetheless. Rather than lies being
told about the investigation, in my case, lies were told in court proceedings
by a woman intently out to defame me, knowing full well that the press could initially
publish those lies without being sued for libel. This woman, Suzanne von Maltzahn, was also
using court proceedings to deflect attention away from her very serious
harassment of me and to prevent the police from investigating my allegations
about her. Once harassment litigation
was commenced against me, the police did indeed stop investigating.
15. There
is more I would like to say to the Committee and I hope to do so in due course,
in further written evidence and possibly in giving oral evidence. I have more to say about funding, The
European Human Rights Act, the level of damages, the Press Complaints
Commission and the use of The Harassment Act 1997 in the civil courts to defame
and libel. Gideon Rachman, a columnist
for the Financial Times, published a column last summer about the inaccuracies
of the British press verses the American press.
Their failure to back up their stories with two sources is much of the
problem.
16. I
thank the Committee for commencing this inquiry and for the opportunity to put
forth my experiences.
February 2009
|
