Talk TV Host André Walker Found Guilty of Assaulting Climate Protester at Pro-Trump Dinner
Presenter at Rupert Murdoch-owned station assaulted protester and NHS doctor Kush Naker, a judge finds
BYLINE TIMES IMPACT: Find out about the changes you made happen
Presenter André Walker, who works for the Rupert Murdoch-owned Talk station, has been found guilty of assault, after dragging a protester into a room without CCTV at a Republicans Overseas dinner during Donald Trump’s state visit.
The pro-Trump dinner at Windsor Guildhall on 16 September 2025 saw two Fossil Free London activists stand up at the front and chant “If you drill baby drill, how many will you kill?” while holding banners.
While the female protester was led to a nearby entrance, Mr Walker dragged NHS doctor Kush Naker through the middle of the room and into a side room — which, in a YouTube video after the incident, he mentioned had no CCTV, while putting his thumbs up and grinning.
Dr Naker accused Mr Walker of pinning him on the ground and attempting to punch him, knee him in the groin and strangle him, efforts Dr Naker told the court he had to overpower.
Mr Walker repeatedly said “I’m nearly 50” while visibly out of breath when a camera did eventually enter the room.
At a judgment hearing at Reading Magistrates’ Court today, District Judge (Magistrates’ Court) Pankhania told the pro-Trump YouTuber and News UK presenter: “I am satisfied that the defendant attempted to punch Dr Naker.”
The judge found of the attempted punches: “I am not satisfied that any of those landed” — but Mr Walker’s actions amounted to assault nonetheless.
No Evidence of Threat to Art
In a hearing on 30 July, which this outlet also covered, Mr Walker and his defence, former Conservative justice secretary Sir Robert Buckland KC, attempted to claim the Talk host was trying to defend the paintings from the protesters damaging them. But no evidence was given that they would attempt to do so.
The judge found: “Dr Naker didn’t have a bag or anything in his hands when he stood up. His back was to the painting. At no point before his approach does he turn to the many pieces of art.”
“There is no evidence that any of the protesters threatened to cause damage… There is no evidence in the Mayor’s Parlour [the private side-room] that Dr Naker moved towards the art or threatened to move.”
The judge found that Mr Walker “did not reasonably hold the belief that he needed to defend the artwork” — and that this defence only emerged strongly three months after the incident.
Ill-Judged YouTube Videos
Mr Walker appeared to have added to his problems by publishing prolifically on YouTube about the trial and the incident.
The judge found: “The YouTube video is instructive about the defendant’s mind.” In one video immediately after the assault, Walker described “having a fight with the protesters”, mentioned the artwork briefly but nothing further, grinned with a double thumbs-up about the lack of CCTV, called the protesters terrorists, and asked for donations to his Patriot Fund.
“I do not find that the artwork threat was genuinely held,” the judge said.
The judge also noted that Mr Walker “admitted in his police interview that he may have used unreasonable force.”
The prosecution stated that Walker “dragged Dr Naker into the Mayor’s Parlour, held him down, kneeling on him, and made some punches which did not connect”. She submitted to the court that the dragging and kneeling on Dr Naker — neither of which was contested — amounted to substantial force.
Dr Naker reported having a sore wrist, a sore jaw and a sore tongue after the incident, as well as psychological harm. Walker scoffed when he heard the “psychological harm” point.
The prosecution read out a victim personal statement, submitted 22 February 2026, in which Dr Naker stated: “The level of violence and anger took me by surprise. It was extreme.”
“The prolonged assault on me in the side room went way beyond what I anticipated… I never thought the attack would happen.”
Dr Naker said the incident “replayed in my mind for weeks. It was a very scary experience.”
“I feel lucky he didn’t manage to completely overpower me,” he said, wondering “what could have happened, and how much worse it could have been had Walker been stronger.”
“I don’t mind being yelled at, but not being hit,” Dr Naker said in his statement.
“There were distressing videos, naming me, calling me a terrorist, so smug about what he’d done. He distorted the reality.”
Dr Naker recommended: “Some work around anger management or reflection might be a good idea.”
‘You Should Rightly Be Ashamed’
Walker’s barrister, Sir Robert Buckland, urged the court to be lenient: “I would put it more towards [category] B [assault], which allows the court to look at the sentencing range” — in the range of a conditional discharge or a fine.
“It’s always difficult looking back at videos — you get a sense it takes longer.” He argued it was not a prolonged assault, and that the absence of statutory aggravating factors and previous convictions, as well as “positive good character” and “very unusual character references”, helped his case.
Sir Robert noted that the character references read in court in July “start reading very badly but become very positive”.
“He’s a man who can be blunt, but he’s a good man who does his best to help people,” Sir Robert said.
“Had the protest not happened, there’d have been no reason for the defendant to react,” he added.
“The sudden and unwarned commencement of some form of disorder, and the defendant’s misjudgement — which we have to concede the court has found — is something to be taken into account as a mitigating factor,” Sir Robert argued. “He’s not someone who’s in the habit of losing his temper in a way that causes criminality.”
But the judge interjected, saying: “It is a sustained and persistent assault.”
The judge said he was persuaded as to the level of penalty and was considering full costs and compensation to Dr Naker at £100 a month, with the first payment in 28 days. Sir Robert said: “I’m content with that.” Mr Walker’s income was given as £700 a week after tax.
Walker stood for the judgment.
“I find you guilty… You’re a public figure, Mr Walker. With that carries an extra degree of responsibility.”
“You apologised in your police interview for parts of the way you behaved… You should rightly be ashamed of the way you behaved,” the judge said.
“The offence is serious” and merited a conditional discharge of 18 months, meaning he will not serve prison time unless he offends in that period.
Of the compensation and costs order, the judge said: “The court can enforce this and send bailiffs if it’s not met.” He ordered costs of £650 and compensation of £550, at £100 a month, with the first payment due within 28 days.
On hearing the judgment, André Walker slammed the desk and began storming out. On seeing the surprise on the judge’s face, he turned and said “Can I go?” before leaving the court swiftly. “Oh my God,” he appeared to shout as he was exiting (another witness heard it as ‘what a cock’).
The judge turned to Walker’s barrister and said: “I’m not going to take action on what I just heard, Sir Robert.”
Outside the courtroom, Sir Robert realised Walker had left the court altogether.
Byline Times saw Mr Walker and attempted to interview him, but he ran into a shop and shut the door, pointing at this reporter.
News UK has not responded to any requests for comment regarding Mr Walker’s role at Talk.
Walker told his supporters on Tuesday night: “This time tomorrow, I may very well be starting my two years in prison” and asked for donations.
There was never any prospect of two years in prison for the charge he faced, as there is a six-month maximum for assault by beating. The judge expressly cited the Patriot Fund appeals as evidence of Walker’s state of mind. The Talk host has said he is “desperate” for donations.
In a statement after the judgment, Dr Kush Naker, the campaigner with Fossil Free London, said: “Using violence to silence free speech is a hallmark of facism. André Walker’s response to hearing us criticise deadly fossil fuel addiction gave us a glimpse of what happens when extreme right wing populist narratives build their movements on hate.
“It’s frightening that this violent man is given a platform to further spread such toxic views by News UK, YouTube and X. Such violence must always be condemned, and I will continue to do all I can to peacefully disrupt those who are destroying the health of my patients & loved ones.”
Josiah Mortimer is Byline Times’ Chief Reporter. Got a story? Get in touch in confidence on josiah@bylinetimes.com. He also writes the On the Ground column, exclusive to the print edition of Byline Times.
So for more from him…
What a nasty little creep.
And to judge by his reaction after sentencing, he's learned nothing at all from the experience. I think the judge should have hauled him back & accused him of contempt of court.
Seems likely that he will offend again with that 18 months, doesn't it?
Not of course that I'm encouraging anyone to wind him up...