Dr Paul McKenna, celebrity hypnotist, is officially not a charlatan. A judge has held that you cannot say that he bought a PhD from a dodgy Louisianan diploma mill. That is completely untrue and libellous.
Unusually for a celeb suing for defamatory comments the case was heard before a jury only.
What does this mean?
The case was too complex?
Dr McKenna thinks he is unpopular with the public?
Or it is easier to hypnotise one judge than 12 jury members?
I’m going with the first option.
Anyhow, damages are to be assessed later.
PS original post of 10.20 edited once more details of case became available.