We were the victims of a ‘campaign of terror’, claim Spanish newspaper publishers Michel and Steven Euesden

LAST UPDATED: 13 Dec, 2016 @ 07:45
11
SHARE
We were the victims of a ‘campaign of terror’, claim Spanish newspaper publishers Michel and Steven Euesden

THE publishers of Euro Weekly News believe they have been the victims of a ‘campaign of terror’ at the hands of a local journalist.

A sobbing Michel Euesden told an Almeria court how Lenox Napier had defamed her and her husband, calling her a ‘puta’ (whore) and the couple ‘a**holes’ in a series of online articles.

Her husband Steven, who gave evidence with the help of a translator, also accused Napier of defrauding them to the tune of 53 million pesetas (approximately 320,000 euros).

The couple, originally from Manchester but resident on the Costa del Sol for many years, are suing Napier on two counts, one of ‘defrauding’ them, and one of defamation.

The two sides are at war over the ownership of The Entertainer brand, the newspaper which preceded the Euro Weekly News and was founded by Napier.

Napier, who lives in Mojácar, is facing two years in prison over the claims.

The journalist insists it is entirely untrue.

In dramatic scenes a journalist from Costa Almeria News was barred from reporting on the trial.

Richard Torne has now filed an official complaint against the Judge at Penal Court No4 in Almeria.

He said “It is incredible that a judge can do this. It makes me very angry.”

After the trial Michel Euesden said of Napier: “The mark (brand) was not his to sell to us. But he took all of our money.”

More to follow…

11 COMMENTS

The Olive Press are not responsible and do not moderate individual comments before they are posted. Anyone who uses racist, sexist, homophobic or xenophobic language or hate speech will be blocked.
  1. Interesting but lacks abit of important legal detail – what is the legal, Registered name of the “brand” they bought from Napier and are now contesting? Did the new Owners change the name of the new publication sufficiently to avoid legal infringement of that prior Copyright? Did the prior Owner attempt to DEFRAUD the new Buyers BY MISREPRESENTING what he legally owned and sold to the Buyers? Judge’s decision could be solid grounds for a Mistrial or Appeal, ETC!! As “normal”, only lawyers benefit

  2. @ James – Local authorities MAY have tried to perform a video transmission from Nigel Goldman but haven’t been able to locate an INITIAL location.. N, S, E or W. They MAY now be looking into Thailand, where they hear many Brits go for a “variety” of reasons. Anyway-questionable witness at best

  3. Not so easy to ascertain who is the victim here
    if the new owners bought and paid for the paper there must be a record of payments and agreements .
    i thought TRUTH was an absolute defense to defamation proceedings so if what the original owner said was true , no case .
    it what he said wasnt true , then damages must be determined by actual damages suffered . if the claimants reputation was sullied already , cant imagine too much in the way of damages.

  4. Surely the point is EWN and the Euesdens brought this case against Napier. I very much doubt they would have done so if they didn’t believe they had a very strong case. Do reports from the court not state that they proved they paid Napier. They have the paperwork to prove it but it wasn’t notarised! I am not sure of why having a contacts magazine or advertisements are relevant to the case. This week EWN have less than 2 quarter pages, while Sur in English have 1 to 2 full pages. I await with interest the verdict of the court case!

HAVE YOUR SAY...