13 July 2024 - Genevieve Holding, The Mercury
No significant prospects of success: former cult leader appeal hopes dashed
Coverage of Chief Justice Blow's dismissal of Natasha Lakaev's appeal for want of prosecution.
Read the articleMy Story
Justice Stephen Estcourt AM rules Natasha Lakaev an “Arrant Liar”, “Cult Leader”, “Criminal”, “Violent Extremist”, and “Likely to Suffer from Narcissistic and Borderline Personality Disorders” in the Supreme Court of Tasmania, Hobart: Lakaev v McConkey [2024] TASSC 8 on 1 March 2024.
Defamation Victory
Lakaev v McConkey No. 2093/2018
I am thrilled with the result of winning judgment in my favour in the Supreme Court of Tasmania, Hobart. I self-represented in defamation proceedings in relation to my self-published book The Cult Effect, content on my website, and content on three social media posts on Facebook and Twitter.
After a trial that spanned from 28 September to 12 December 2023 in Hobart with final written submissions and replies filed by 28 February 2024, Justice Stephen Estcourt AM handed down his Judgment on 1 March 2024 ruling 12 imputations “absolutely true” and 4 imputations “substantially true” pursuant to the defence of s25 Justification of the Defamation Act 2005 TAS: [2024] TASSC 8.
Justice Estcourt AM described Lakaev as an “arrant Liar” and a “cult leader”, and ruled that she committed: assault, indecent assault, and fraud.
Justice Estcourt AM ruled the following 12 imputations “absolutely true”, that Lakaev:
- •Is a bully
- •Unlawfully battered me
- •Unlawfully battered others
- •Unlawfully incited other persons to batter persons
- •Wrongfully indoctrinated people
- •Breached Australian industrial legislation
- •Unlawfully obtained a financial advantage
- •Unlawfully used and supplied an illicit drug
- •Misused her position as a psychologist to threaten me
- •Physically abused me
- •Committed acts of abuse against me
- •Is a criminal
Justice Estcourt AM ruled the remaining four imputations “substantially true” including that Lakaev:
- •Is likely to suffer from narcissistic and borderline personality disorder
- •Is unfit to practise as a psychologist
- •Was guilty of abuse and physical assault of the defendant and that she was guilty of such conduct as to warrant her de-registration as a psychologist
- •Is a violent extremist
I fought this defamation case for 5.5 years (after being sued by the plaintiff for three years previously from 2011 to 2014 in relation to newspaper articles published in The Sunday Age and the Gold Coast Bulletin).
This is a victory not only for myself and my family, but for all the survivors of this cult and their families and loved ones.
I am immensely grateful to his Honour Justice Stephen Estcourt AM for his astute intelligence and rigour while presiding over this trial and bringing justice once and for all to a criminal who has been a vexatious litigant against all those who have spoken the truth about her.
I encourage all victims of crime to step forward, speak the truth to police and keep any documentary, audio or video evidence safe and secure so that perpetrators can be prosecuted criminally with solid evidence and credible witness testimony.
The court system and the law are there to support us. Although the process can be difficult and costly, I believe that victims of crime should keep documentary, audio, video and witness evidence safe, and report criminal actions to police in the first instance.
Although my case was defamation in a civil trial, I truly believe that justice can be served on those who commit crimes. We just have to be willing and determined to persevere no matter what challenges are put in front of us.
I have corresponded with the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (AHPRA) to request that they now deregister the plaintiff who his Honour Justice Estcourt has ruled “unfit to practise as a psychologist and warrants deregistration”.
I would encourage ex-cult members and their families to report the criminal actions of cult leaders to the Police in the first instance to prevent retaliation via civil law suits for publications.
I am grateful to the court staff and witnesses who helped the process proceed, including those who appeared by video link. Their willingness to speak truthfully mattered.
I will continue to educate on cults and coercive control and am dedicated to working with State and Federal Police, and other government agencies to investigate and prosecute cult leaders for their crimes which may include coercive and deceptive recruitment, grooming, physical and/or sexual assault, fraud, human trafficking, sex trafficking, Modern Slavery, Ideologically and/or Religiously Motivated Violent Extremism, and Terrorism.
Appeal Dismissed
Lakaev v McConkey No. 771/2024
An appeal was filed on 22 March 2024 in relation to Lakaev v McConkey. On 9 April, I applied to dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution after the appellant failed to file the documents proposed for the appeal book within the required timeframe.
After oral and written submissions and replies were filed between April and June, Chief Justice Blow AO dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution on 12 July 2024: [2024] TASSC 35.
Chief Justice Blow found that defending the appeal would cause significant prejudice and that the original or proposed grounds of appeal had no significant prospects of success.
Judgment Summary
His Honour Justice Estcourt AM described Lakaev as an “arrant liar” and a “cult leader” and stated in his Judgment, 1 March 2024:
Credibility of the Plaintiff
Paragraph 211
When an unfavourable question was put to the plaintiff, (which were the vast majority of questions), the plaintiff would stall or prevaricate in such a way that it appeared to me to be a deliberate strategy for getting her bearings and thinking of a way to answer the question. Even then the answer given was never a direct answer. She was garrulous and excessively given to circular and unresponsive answers which often ran into minutes. Her evidence was uncomfortably replete with circumambages.
Conclusion as to Credibility
Paragraph 276
I should be obvious from the observations I have set out above that I regard the plaintiff as a dishonest and unreliable witness and the people she called to give evidence as part of her case as not independent witnesses. Rather it appeared to me that those witnesses remain deeply loyal to the plaintiff and hence partial. The defendant on the other hand I regard as an honest and reliable witness.
Unlawful Battery
Paragraph 288
Given that I accept the evidence of the defendant and her witnesses and reject that of the plaintiff and her witnesses where their evidence differs... I have no doubt that the imputations that the plaintiff had unlawfully battered the defendant and other persons and incited battery by persons of other persons, is absolutely true.
Wrongful Indoctrination
Paragraph 297
This imputation is of course at the very heart of this action and I have no difficulty in finding that the plaintiff wrongfully indoctrinated people. Given her egregiously untruthful evidence that her group was not a cult in the sense in which that word is ordinarily understood, and the uncontroverted evidence of the defendant and her witnesses to the contrary, I have not the slightest doubt that the plaintiff knowingly and wrongfully indoctrinated people into her bizarre belief system.
That the Plaintiff was a Criminal
Paragraph 307
The evidence in this case establishes, to my complete satisfaction, that the plaintiff has committed assault and indecent assault and incited others to commit those crimes. She has also unlawfully obtained financial advantage and has possessed, used and supplied an illicit substance.
Unfit to Practise as a Psychologist
Paragraph 312
In my judgment, no reasonable person with knowledge of the findings that I have made against the plaintiff in this action would take the view that she was a fit and proper person to remain registered by any licensing body to provide counselling and treatment to emotionally and/or psychologically vulnerable clients.
Narcissistic and Borderline Personality Disorders
Paragraph 315
I have found that the plaintiff was a cult leader as well as having wrongfully indoctrinated people. That she is "likely to" suffer from narcissism and personality disorders is, in my view, substantially true without the need for expert evidence.
Violent Extremist
Paragraph 317
Her ideology, spiritual beliefs and physical practices were however, in my view, so far outside the mainstream as to warrant characterisation as extreme. And they were clearly attended by violence, both physically and culturally. The notion of teaching students on The Survivors courses to shoot firearms was not suggested as being for the purposes of shooting game for food. The clear implication from that practice was that survival in an apocalyptic event was that to survive, a student must know how to kill other human beings.
In the News
Selected media coverage from the 2024 judgment, appeal, and broader public discussion about cult recruitment and recovery.
12 July 2024 - Ben Seeder, The Examiner
Former cult leader Natasha Lakaev loses libel case appeal
Report on Lakaev's failed bid to overturn the findings of the libel trial.
Read the article29 April 2024 - Nicola McCaskill, SBS Insight
My daughter has joined a cult. I have no idea how to get her out
A broader SBS Insight article about cult recruitment, families, and how loved ones can respond.
Read the article1 April 2024 - Amber Wilson, The Mercury
Former cult leader lodges appeal after defamation loss and seeks retrial with new judge
Coverage of Lakaev's notice of appeal after the Supreme Court of Tasmania judgment.
Read the article29 March 2024 - Benjamin Seeder, The Advocate
Cult leader to appeal court loss, seeks new libel trial before new judge
Article on the appeal filed after the March 2024 defamation judgment.
Read the article4 March 2024 - Amber Wilson, The Mercury
Given to grandiosity: judge slams former cult leader Natasha Lakaev
Coverage of Justice Estcourt's findings after the Supreme Court of Tasmania trial.
Read the article4 March 2024 - Benjamin Seeder, The Advocate
Former cult leader loses defamation trial against book author
Report on the defamation trial outcome and findings that the imputations were true or substantially true.
Read the article