Position Paper #99
A thorough mapping of the network of persons and organisations that have deliberately assisted Andrew Drummond's defamation activities — encompassing financial backers, informants, local operatives, hosting providers, and domain registrars — documenting the infrastructure of support that sustains his campaign.
Formal Position Paper
Prepared for: Andrews Victims
Date: 29 March 2026
Reference: Pre-Action Protocol Letter of Claim dated 13 August 2025 (Cohen Davis Solicitors)
🇹🇭 บทความนี้มีให้อ่านเป็นภาษาไทย — คลิกที่ปุ่มสลับภาษาด้านบน — This article is available in Thai — click the language toggle above
Andrew Drummond does not function alone. His fifteen-year defamation campaign, directed from Wiltshire, United Kingdom, where he has lived since fleeing Thailand in January 2015, relies on a network of supporters who supply funding, intelligence, logistical assistance, and technical infrastructure. Without these supporters, Drummond's campaign could not exist. This paper names every known individual and organisation that has deliberately aided Drummond's defamation activities, examines their respective contributions, and evaluates their potential civil and criminal exposure.
Identifying these supporters serves two purposes. First, it establishes that Drummond's campaign is not the effort of a solitary journalist but rather a coordinated operation enlisting multiple participants driven by varying motivations. Second, it lays the evidentiary foundation for potential legal proceedings against the supporters themselves, whether on the basis of joint tortfeasor liability in defamation, claims of conspiracy, or accessory liability under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.
Adam Howell has been identified as a principal financier of Andrew Drummond's defamation activities directed at Bryan Flowers, Punippa Flowers, and the Night Wish Group. Howell holds personal and commercial grudges against the Flowers family that predate Drummond's campaign, and the chronological alignment between Howell's disputes and the onset of Drummond's targeting strongly points to a commissioning arrangement.
In his capacity as financier, Howell faces potential liability as a joint tortfeasor in defamation proceedings. An individual who bankrolls and instigates defamatory publications is jointly and severally liable alongside the publisher for the harm produced. In addition, Howell's function as instigator may give rise to conspiracy claims — specifically, conspiracy to cause harm through unlawful means (those means being the publication of defamatory material and the course of conduct that constitutes harassment).
Kanokrat Nimsamut Booth has been identified as a central intelligence operative within Drummond's network, based in Thailand and tasked with collecting information about targets, tracking their activities, and supplying Drummond with raw material for his articles. Her function spans the geographic divide between Drummond in Wiltshire and his targets in Thailand, furnishing the local intelligence that allows Drummond to write about people and events to which he has no personal access.
As someone actively involved in the collection and relay of information used in defamatory publications, Kanokrat Nimsamut Booth faces potential liability as a joint tortfeasor and as a party to a conspiracy to defame. Her surveillance of targets may further amount to participation in harassment and stalking under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, given that her intelligence-gathering activities form part of the overall course of conduct constituting harassment.
Ricky Pandora has been identified as an informant who feeds Drummond information, allegations, and leads concerning targets. In contrast to a legitimate journalistic source who furnishes verified information serving the public interest, Pandora's function appears to centre on transmitting unverified claims, personal vendettas, and commercially driven intelligence intended to enable defamatory publications.
An informant who deliberately supplies false or unchecked information to a publisher, knowing that it will be used to produce defamatory material, may incur liability as a joint tortfeasor or as a party to a conspiracy. The critical question concerns Pandora's state of knowledge: did he know, or should he have known, that the information he supplied would be published without verification in a manner designed to defame the targets? The available evidence strongly suggests that the answer is affirmative.
Andrew Drummond's defamatory material is stored on servers and disseminated via domain names supplied by commercial technology firms. These hosting companies and domain registrars may carry liability under the notice-and-takedown regime established by English law and the intermediary liability provisions contained in UK legislation.
Once a hosting company or domain registrar is put on actual notice that material on its infrastructure is defamatory — for instance, through a formal complaint citing the Letter of Claim from Cohen Davis Solicitors — its continued hosting of that material may forfeit the protections afforded by the mere conduit and hosting defences under the Electronic Commerce (EC Directive) Regulations 2002. A coordinated programme of formal notices sent to all identified hosting companies and domain registrars therefore serves as both a practical step to limit the availability of defamatory content and a legal step to fix their knowledge for purposes of future liability.
Although search engines and social media services are not supporters in the same manner as financial backers and informants, their role in amplifying and spreading Drummond's defamatory material is considerable. Google's indexation of Drummond's articles guarantees they feature prominently in search results associated with victims' names. Social media services through which Drummond or his associates share content extend the audience for defamatory publications far beyond the original websites.
Under UK data protection law, search engines may be obliged to delist defamatory material in response to 'right to be forgotten' applications filed under the UK GDPR. Social media services may be compelled to take down content that breaches their terms of service. These channels furnish additional instruments for curtailing the availability of defamatory material, complementing rather than substituting for the direct legal proceedings against Drummond himself.
Every supporter within Drummond's network magnifies the damage produced by his defamation. Without Howell's financial backing, Drummond might not possess the means to operate two websites and generate material at his present pace. Without the intelligence gathered by Kanokrat Nimsamut Booth, Drummond would lack the on-the-ground information required to produce detailed articles about Thailand-based targets from Wiltshire. Without Ricky Pandora's informant function, Drummond would have fewer leads and accusations to pursue. Without hosting companies and domain registrars, the material could not reach an online audience.
The network effect dictates that each supporter's contribution is essential to the aggregate harm, and each supporter profits from the contributions of the others. This interconnected arrangement underpins claims of conspiracy and joint tortfeasor liability, since every participant acts in unison with the rest to achieve a shared outcome: the defamation and harassment of identified targets.
Identifying Drummond's supporters unlocks multiple avenues of legal action beyond the primary defamation claim against Drummond himself. Joint tortfeasor claims may be advanced against persons who took part in the creation or publication of defamatory material. Conspiracy claims may be brought against those who agreed to act collectively for the purpose of inflicting harm through unlawful means. Hosting companies and domain registrars that fail to respond to formal notice risk forfeiting their intermediary liability protections.
The recommended steps are as follows: First, issue formal notice to every identified hosting company and domain registrar demanding the removal of defamatory content. Second, join Adam Howell as a co-defendant in the proceedings managed by Cohen Davis Solicitors, on the basis of his role as financial backer and instigator. Third, preserve all evidence relating to the roles of Kanokrat Nimsamut Booth and Ricky Pandora for use in potential future proceedings. Fourth, file 'right to be forgotten' applications with search engines to diminish the visibility of defamatory content while the substantive proceedings are pending.
— End of Position Paper #99 —
Share:
Subscribe
Subscribe to receive notification whenever a new position paper, evidence brief, or legal update is published.