In mid-November last year, it was reported by one of those present that Jolyon Maugham KC, the founder and executive director of the Good Law Project, had implied to a recent meeting of Cambridge University students that he is gay. On social media, this generated a fair amount of bemused comment and, on 24 November, when asked why I thought Maugham might have said such a thing, I glibly and crudely replied by referencing Maugham’s own account (in his 2023 autobiography) of what I understood to have been transactional sex with older men in his youth.

Suffice to say, Maugham did not take this well: in addition to reporting me to the police under section 127 of the Communications Act 2003, he instructed “leading counsel in relation to defamation, harassment and breach of privacy” and – somewhat bizarrely – lodged a complaint to the Charity Commission against the human rights charity Sex Matters, presumably under the Guilt by Association Act 2025.

Maugham reporting me to the police did not trouble me greatly – just like him, I’m prepared to go to prison if that’s where I find my ethics require me to go. Or something. But over the Christmas holiday period, Maugham’s shameless use of my crass and regrettable social media post as a stick to beat the wholly innocent staff and supporters of Sex Matters gnawed away at my mental health.

I have a long history of serious mental ill-health: over the past four decades, I’ve been repeatedly hospitalised, including after being sectioned, and bear the scars of having once tried hard to separate my head from my body, using a Stanley knife. And so, early on 5 January, after two days of frighteningly rapid mental decline, I realised that I had an ever-shortening window in which to do something to avoid calamity.

So, that morning, I sent an email message to the Good Law Project, requesting an opportunity to speak to Maugham, to apologise. Unsurprisingly, I got no response. So I spoke to a good friend whom I thought might know a way to contact Maugham direct. Concerned about my welfare, that friend then contacted a friend of Maugham’s, and a few hours later I was able to send the following email direct to Maugham:

Dear Jolyon,

Further to my earlier email to the generic GLP address, a friend of mine has kindly spoken to a friend of yours, who in turn kindly suggested that I set out my apology to you, and my offer to withdraw entirely from all public debate about the GLP and related matters, in writing, via this direct email, which (for reasons I will come to) they kindly shared.

I would like to apologise unreservedly to you, your family and GLP staff for my recent comments on social media. These were crass and deeply regrettable. I would be happy to agree the text of an apology for you to share publicly, should you wish.

To ensure that there is no repeat, I undertake to withdraw entirely, and permanently, from all public debate about you, the GLP and all related matters. I will delete not just those recent social media posts for which I now apologise, but also all previous posts, by deleting my X/Twitter account. And I will delete all relevant blog posts.

I am not in a position to expect anything in return, but in the interests of my own family, including my elderly mother (for whom I care part-time) and my disabled adult son, who depend on me, I appeal to you to accept my apology and withdrawal from public debate as offered in good faith, and leave me in peace, so that I can continue to support my family.

Thank you for your consideration. I had hoped to be able to speak to you by ‘phone to make my apology and appeal to you more personally, but of course you may prefer to discuss only by email.

I may not deserve it, but please give my family this chance, Jolyon. They do not deserve to suffer for my actions.

Richard

To his credit, Maugham responded within a few hours:

Hi Richard, 

A few points:

1. I will take some time to think about this and discuss it with my family.

2. We had already instructed leading Counsel over the Christmas period in relation to defamation, harassment and breach of privacy.

3. There is also the matter of my complaint to the police under s127 which I understand them to be pursuing.

4. I don’t know what this refers to: “a friend of mine has kindly spoken to a friend of yours, who in turn kindly suggested that I set out my apology to you.”

5. I would like to know whether you have been funded to write your Labour Pains blog, or to do other work targeting me and my family.

Jolyon

A couple of hours later, I replied to Maugham:

Thank you for responding, Jolyon.

On your point 1, I understand. Ditto your points 2 and 3.

On point 4, I do not want to get anyone into trouble or cause any difficulty between you and your friend, which is why I did not give their name. They acted as they did for humane reasons. But if you really want to know, then I will tell you. Or they may tell you themselves, of course.

On point 5, I can assure you that I have never been paid a penny by anyone for anything on the Labour Pains blog (or for any other relevant work – though I can’t think of any, in any case).

To be clear, when I said that I will delete my X posts and Labour Pains blogs, that was not conditional on your response – I was not seeking a ‘deal’. I have already (permanently) deleted most of the blog posts, and will complete the process this evening.

Richard

And, in the early hours of 6 January, I emailed Maugham again:

Further to my earlier email, I have now completed (permanent) deletion of all relevant Labour Pains blog posts, and have (permanently) deactivated my X account.

I cannot change the past, but I have now done all that I can to make amends.

What you do now is up to you. It is you that will have to live with your decision.

I wish you and your family well.

Richard

Then, on 14 January, by email, I received the following letter from Matthew Gill, an SRA-regulated solicitor employed as “defamation lawyer” at the Good Law Project:

Dear Mr Dunstan

Thank you for your emails to Good Law Project and our client, Jolyon Maugham KC.

We note you have decided of your own volition (we did not ask you to do this) to deactivate your account on x.com and to delete the posts on your ‘Labour Pains’ blog which relate to Mr Maugham, his family and Good Law Project.

We also note your offers, again of your own volition (we had not asked you for this), to issue a public apology and desist in the future from issuing any public facing communications about Mr Maugham, his family and Good Law Project.

In order to draw a line under this matter, Mr Maugham, his family and Good Law Project will agree to make no civil claims against you in respect of your historic actions on the following bases:

1. You make a payment of £5,000 to the charity Refuge. Mr Maugham seeks payment of this sum in recognition of both (i) the costs that have been incurred in instructing Leading Counsel to assess the merits of bringing a claim against you and (ii) the harm caused by your publications.

2. You publish on your blog ‘Labour Pains’ a public apology in the following terms, to remain visible and prominent on your blog for at least 12 months:

“I apologise unreservedly to Jolyon Maugham, his family and Good Law Project for my harassment of them. I accept many of my statements were false and my campaign was harmful and intrusive. I have paid a substantial sum to Refuge in settlement of all claims against me.”

3. You agree not to reinstate or to post in future any social media or blog posts which make personal attacks or comments on Mr Maugham or his family.

If this is acceptable to you we will draw up a binding agreement for you to sign. This offer will remain open for seven days. We recommend that you take legal advice on this letter.

Yours faithfully,

Good Law Project

On 20 January, via email, I replied to Matthew Gill (and James Douglas, Head of Legal at the Good Law Project, to whom Gill had copied his email to me on 14 January):

Dear Mr Gill,

Thank you for your letter of 14 January.

When I suggested, in my email of 5 January to your ‘client’ and Executive Director Jolyon Maugham KC, that I would be happy to agree the text of an apology for him to share publicly, what I had in mind was refinement of the apology I had already given in the previous paragraph of that email.

It did not occur to me that you or your ‘client’ would respond by demanding my unqualified admission to nebulous and unsubstantiated allegations that I have not been given any opportunity to consider in detail, let alone rebut in part or full. And, having taken advice, I consider it unreasonable of you to do so.

However, if you would now like to substantiate your allegations – including by identifying all those statements of mine that you consider to be ‘false’ – then I will be happy to give that information my full consideration.

Yours sincerely,

Richard Dunstan

Meanwhile, on 16 January, without having discussed the matter with me, Detective Constable Nicholas Freeman of the Metropolitan Police had emailed me, stating:

I have now considered the facts of this case and reviewed your two emails dated 05/01/26 to Mr Maugham and the Good Law Project.

In light of the full and frank apologies you provided in those emails, your confirmation that you intend to delete the offending post and the associated X/Twitter account, and the fact that you have offered a written apology that Mr Maugham may publish if he wishes, I am satisfied that this matter can be concluded by way of a Community Resolution.

This means the incident will be recorded by the police as an out‑of‑court disposal Community Resolution. It will be held on police systems and is searchable by all UK police forces via the Police National Database. Should any further allegations of similar behaviour arise, this information may be taken into account.

A community resolution does not give you a criminal conviction or criminal record; however, the matter will remain recorded on police indices.

Kind regards,

DC Nicholas Freeman, Walworth Police Station

To date, I have not heard further from Jolyon Maugham, Matthew Gill, or DC Freeman. And, to my mind, the above correspondence was private. But on 26 January, on their website, the Good Law Project posted an update setting out selected extracts (from one side only) of the correspondence, and stating that Maugham “intends to bring civil proceedings against [me]”.

Thanks to his previous work as a tax lawyer, Maugham is a wealthy man, and the Good Law Project has some £4 million sitting in the bank. On the other hand, it’s fair to say, as Maugham supporter Liz Church has done on social media, that my family and I can “afford foreign holidays”. Maybe someone should report us to the Metropolitan Police for that.

So, while I do not resile one bit from my apology to Maugham, it seems only fair – and in keeping with the Good Law Project’s own transparency principles – that I make the full correspondence available, to enable those who are interested to make their own assessment of its contents.