'This is not a popularity contest', Milne's counsel tells court

A judge and two magistrates hearing a solicitor’s appeal against his conviction for stalking a legal blogger have been told that it might be tempting to dislike the appellant - but his conduct did not cause alarm or distress.

Andrew Jonathan Milne, admitted in November 1986, is appealing a conviction for stalking Daniel Cloake, who blogs under the name Mouse in the Court.

In closing submissions yesterday afternoon, Lauren Matthews, for the Crown, told Snaresbrook Crown Court that emails Milne sent to Cloake were ‘littered with sexual references and offensive language, sometimes directed towards Daniel Cloake, sometimes directed towards others’. Milne found it ‘particularly funny’ when the death of a solicitor, who Milne said had been rude to him, came up in evidence, Matthews told the court.

Matthews said Cloake was ‘plainly alarmed and distressed’ by Milne’s conduct, which included ‘persistent’ emails, asking for sex and giving a birthday present. Milne also turned up at Cloake’s home uninvited, leaving a note threatening Cloake with bankruptcy and referring to him as a 'sex slave'.

Matthews told the court that Cloake attended Milne’s hearings because ‘he was interested in complicated and interesting cases’. They had lunch, including one that lasted more than three hours, because Cloake wanted to speak to Milne about ‘being a source of information and someone who could assist with his blogging’, Matthews said.

Nathan Goldstein, for Milne, told the court in his closing submissions: ‘This is not a popularity contest. Whether you think Andrew Milne gave his evidence in an unattractive way or said unattractive things, it is not an offence to say horrible things. It might be tempting to dislike the appellant for what he said in correspondence but that’s not what the case is about. Causation is the first step. If there is no causation, you do not even need to move onto what [Milne] said.’

Goldstein said Cloake took an interest in Milne’s litigation when he was not a blogger and took time off work to attend Milne’s hearings. On the lunch that lasted nearly four hours, Goldstein told the court that it was 'extraordinary you can have lunch with someone for such a long period of time and not discuss personal things'.

On Milne's visit to Cloake's house, Goldstein told the court Milne emailed beforehand but Cloake had taken no action. 'If you're seriously concerned about whether someone is going to come and harass you, surely the time to complain to the police is then, not wait and see if he comes. This is significant because it shows he was not alarmed or distressed by what was going on. He was simply compiling evidence to use against Andrew Milne in some way or other, to complain to the SRA or write an article,' Goldstein said.

Earlier, Milne was cross-examined by Matthews. Their exchange became heated at one point, prompting His Honour Judge Timothy Greene to intervene. ‘Mr Milne, you do not shout at counsel. You’re a solicitor, a qualified solicitor, you have been one for a number of years. You must know your behaviour is unacceptable,' the judge said. Milne apologised to Matthews for raising his voice.

Following Matthews' cross-examination, the judge asked Milne about some of his correspondence, asking what his references to ‘fresh hot fox’ meant. On evidence Milne gave about an email to a law firm in 2024, the judge said: ‘You told us ... you were perfectly happy to put four, three references to sexual double entendres in a letter to a firm of solicitors but never do you ever, do you ever use double entendres in 96 emails to Daniel Cloake. Is that right?’

Milne told the judge that he and the firm had been working on a case for six years and knew each other well. ‘We also knew Dan very well and it was astonishing to find out Dan was an imposter,’ Milne told the judge.

The hearing was adjourned for the court’s decision on 9 November.