Laurence Fox’s bid to dismiss fees towards him for sharing ‘upskirting’ picture of Narinder Kaur is thrown out

Laurence Fox‘s bid to dismiss the charges against him for sharing an ‘upskirting’ image were rejected today after his legal team accused complainant Narinder Kaur of using the criminal justice process to seek ‘notoriety’ and ‘remain relevant’.

The 46-year-old actor-turned-commentator appeared at Woolwich Crown Court this morning for an abuse-of-process hearing in which he asked the judge to throw out the Section 66A charge – relating to intentionally sending or showing an image of a person’s genitals.

This is in relation to an image that was allegedly taken without Ms Kaur’s knowledge or consent as she exited a taxi in 2009 and reshared by Fox from his X account in 2024, prompting her to report it immediately to the Metropolitan Police.

Judge C Grout rejected the application, ruling that the case should proceed to trial in December 2027, where Fox will face the Section 66A charge, as he believed that the defendant could still have a fair trial.

During the hearing, Sarah Forshaw KC launched a wide-ranging attack on the case, arguing that Ms Kaur was using the criminal courts as a ‘circus platform’, misusing the process ‘for notoriety’ and ‘to remain relevant and in the public eye.’

She told the judge that the entire matter was ‘a circus that is being deliberately stage-managed by the complainant’ and that allowing it to continue would amount to ‘a demeaning and an improper use of a serious criminal trial and it ought to offend this court.’

Ms Forshaw claimed the case would become ‘an embarrassing spectacle’ and told the judge that allowing it to continue would ‘undermine public confidence in our justice system’.

Ms Forshaw said the defence had established that there were ‘at least 8 people on Twitter who reposted that old image before Mr Fox on 30 April 2024.’

She accused Ms Kaur of being ‘someone who seeks notoriety and who makes a living out of seeking notoriety’, citing a blog written by the complainant in which she wrote: ‘I craved more, I knew I just KNEW, I had to become famous, I had to make my dreams come true.

‘I remember being at a work conference and being asked what I do and I said I am famous and they said I don’t know who you are and I said you will.’

Turning to the photograph at the centre of the case, Ms Forshaw argued it had been circulating for ‘donkeys’ years.’

She said that ‘once the picture had been tweeted by the defendant the complainant actually reposted it herself’ and that doing so ‘focussed the spotlight’ on her, although the reposted image had the ‘genitalia blacked-out’.

She also suggested that Ms Kaur had waived her anonymity and appeared at court ‘for the cameramen outside of court’, later even questioning whether the image from 2009 was ‘an accidental or a deliberate wardrobe failure by the complainant.’

Ms Forshaw added that since launching the case, the complainant’s social-media following had risen from 59,000 to 66,000.

She told the judge: ‘If there is some improper use of our criminal justice system then this court has a duty to protect its own integrity.’

Ms Forshaw also argued that potential jurors could not deliver a fair verdict due to the social media presence of both parties, as well as claiming in the ‘current climate with Sir Brian Levanson report’, and the huge backlog of cases meant the charge should be dismissed.

Prosecuting Louise Oakley said: ‘Can I make it absolutely clear that this is not a prosecution that is allowing their complainant to bring the courts into disreput.

‘She is not someone who has had any involvement in the charging decision. This is not a case where the prosecution has shoehorned the facts of the case into a charge and this is not a case where the pro are using the court for her benefit as a circus.

‘This is a case where the evidently test was considered as was the public interest.

‘This is a prosecution by the state not by Narinder Kaur. The prosecution was not encouraged by her celebrity status or by Mr Fox celebrity status.’

When passing judgement, Judge Grout said: ‘The key aspects of this case are not in dispute.’

He continued: ‘I am satisfied that as things stand at the moment Mr Fox can have a fair trial.

‘That being said now that criminal proceedings are underway it is a bad idea to engage publicly about this plea.

‘If this behaviour continues a renewed application of stay from Mr Fox may well be considered.’

Speaking after the hearing she told the Daily Mail: ‘I’m thankful for the judge’s decision today to allow this to continue to trial, in December 2027. 

‘I stand in solidarity with all victims, who are navigating the backlogs within our under-resourced justice system and the legal professionals who are working tirelessly to deliver that justice. 

‘I’m thankful to all the people who’ve supported me, it never goes unnoticed’

Narinder Kaur, 53, who has waived her legal right to anonymity, attended court with her husband, Jatinder Punia. However she was not present in the court room during the hearing. 

Fox, who arrived wearing a dark jacket over a white shirt, sat behind his legal team and listened in silence as the ruling was delivered.

Fox was a successful actor, appearing in long-running TV series Lewis and award-winning film Gosford Park.

However, he has since rebranded himself as a right-wing commentator and founder of the Reclaim Party.

Fox has stood in three failed election campaigns and was barred from running in the most recent London mayoral election after submitting incomplete nomination papers.

He was previously married to actress Billie Piper and has two children.