A London firm which secured a landmark ruling against a conspiracy theorist YouTuber has described the challenge of finally securing court victory.
Deputy High Court Judge Susie Alegre ruled in Rzucek v Vinnicombe that the defence of the litigant in person Alan Vinnicombe should be struck out due to multiple procedural failings. A counterclaim was also struck out and an application for security for costs was dismissed.
Vinnicombe, a UK resident, runs a YouTube channel focusing on ‘true crime and other mysteries’ and with 79,100 subscribers in 2023. Through his online platform, he made allegations concerning the murder of Shannan Watts, her daughters and her unborn child in the US state of Colorado in 2018. Watts’ brother Franklin Rzucek, a US citizen who lives in North Carolina, brought a claim against Vinnicombe for defamation and harassment through the UK internet law firm Cohen Davis Solicitors.
Following a hearing last month, the judge ruled that Vinnicombe had failed to provide a compliant defence despite multiple opportunities and an unequivocal indication from another judge that he was on his last chance. The latest defence, it was ruled, was ‘essentially a mishmash of legal wording and vague assertions of unspecified “evidence” or alternative facts’. Vinnicombe’s counterclaim was a ‘vain attempt to muddy the waters’ and similarly non-compliant with procedural rules. The YouTube channel has now been closed down and relevant videos are no longer available online.
Following the judgment, Cohen Davis director and solicitor Yair Cohen said this was the first UK case to result in the shutting down of a YouTube channel for harassment. He added: ‘This wasn’t just about winning a lawsuit—it was about proving that victims of online harassment have legal recourse, that social media abuse has consequences, and that people cannot use platforms like YouTube to terrorise innocent families.’
Cohen said that from a financial perspective the case had been an ‘absolute nightmare’, with the firm initially crowdfunding to support the claim and then working pro bono when costs increased to four times what had been raised. This pro bono work was supported by barrister Gervase de Wilde, from 5RB chambers, who represented the claimant in court.
Beyond the legal challenges, Cohen explained, the firm had to fend off online attacks and regulatory complaints.
‘The defendant launched online campaigns to smear us, posted defamatory videos and livestreams encouraging his followers to bombard our phone lines, and urged them to file multiple complaints with the SRA – all of which were baseless,’ he added. ‘The sheer volume of complaints became overwhelming. Each one required a response, with the SRA requesting extensive documentation and communications.
‘As a boutique firm of just 12 people, taking on a case like this was already a huge challenge. Dealing with all the external pressures on top of that made it even tougher. But we believed in the case and the cause and our unique ability to help the clients, and despite everything, we pushed through.’
3 Readers' comments