Mr Nääs, who has represented former Tallinn mayor Edgar Savisaar in a corruption case, which was dropped in late 2018 after going via all three levels of the Estonian court system, is acting for Ms Jordan in respect of the Stroomi Beach case.

Ms Jordan had claimed she was subject to a xenophobic attack in November 2018, in the Stroomi Beach area of North Tallinn. She said that two Estonian men had pelted her and her dog with rocks, injuring both, as well as exhorting her, in English, to ''go home''.

The story first surfaced in the Estonian and English-language media in an article by tech entrepreneur Karoli Hindriks, who says Ms Jordan, a friend, related the story to her. Around a day after the Hindriks piece appeared, in weekly Maaleht and in English-language online magazine Estonian World, Ms Jordan went to the PPA to report the incident.

Original case termination to be contested

However, the PPA announced on 12 February that, having analysed mobile phone records, security camera footage, witness statements and interviews with Ms Jordan, there was no evidence that she had been at the location, at the time she said, at all.

After this, Ms Jordan herself became the subject of a PPA investigation, reportedly on the grounds of providing false statements.

Mr Nääs has reportedly filed a PPA application for access to the original case file, with a view to contesting the ending of the investigation into the original incident.

''We can confirm that the defendant's representative in this criminal case has submitted an application to the case file, as is their right within 10 days as prescribed by the law,'' according to PPA spokesperson Marie Aava.

Kaarel Kallas, press adviser to the State Prosecutor's Northern District Office, said last Friday that the office comprehends the importance of the issue and is making every effort to provide the public with exhaustive explanations regarding the case as soon as possible.

Mary Jordan remains adamant

Under Estonian law, it is possible to contest the termination of a criminal proceeding after that criminal case has been concluded.

Mary Jordan herself has stood by her original claim that the attack took place. In addition to an original statement in which she stated she was at a loss as to why not only the investigation into the attack had been terminated, but also she was now the subject of an investigation with the threat of a criminal case, she was also the subject of an interview in weekly Eesti Ekspress, which appeared online on Wednesday.

Conducted in London, Ms Jordan noted in the interview that an unnamed friend had stated that she, Jordan, had several phones, and that she could just as easily have travelled to Stroomi Beach on foot, and not by car. She also put straight other inaccuracies she said had been reported about her in the media, albeit not claims made by any police force, including surrounding her family of origin.