A judge has quashed a private prosecution by the CAA as abusive and vexatious, forcing the charity to carry the judgment into future cases.Right, so the Campaign Against Antisemitism has just been handed a court judgment it cannot escape, cannot reframe, and cannot make go away because it’s been baked into how the justice system treats them from this moment forward. In their case against the comedian Reginald D Hunter, a judge has found intentional non-disclosure, described a prosecution as abusive, said the motive was cancellation, and then ordered that those findings must be carried into every future legal application the organisation makes. That is not just a bad ruling. That is a permanent downgrade.This isn’t just about one failed case or one unhappy defendant. It locks in a pattern that’s been building for years, where political pressure is routed through criminal process and the law is used as punishment by procedure. What’s changed is that a court has now drawn a line around that behaviour and attached its name to it. From this point on, every move the CAA makes in court comes pre-labelled — and that’s a consequence too much mainstream coverage is skating past.Right, so what has just happened to the Campaign Against Antisemitism is not a defeat you pad out with a statement and a few sympathetic quotes and then move on. A court has examined how the organisation behaved when it tried to use criminal process against Reginald D Hunter, and the findings are not the sort you just file under “we disagree”. District Judge Michael Snow has found intentional non-disclosure, has said he would have refused to issue a summons had he known what was withheld because he would have found the application vexatious, has concluded the prosecution was abusive, has stated the true and sole motive was to have Hunter cancelled, has said the organisation was not playing it straight, and has then imposed a forward-looking order that forces the organisation to carry the judgment into all future applications. That is more than just a bad day for the CAA. That is a credibility collapse with a court order bolted onto it. Start with what private prosecutions are supposed to be. In England and Wales, you can bring a private prosecution, but the permission to pull someone into criminal court is not meant to be a political lever.