UK-based Pakistani journalist accused of corruption and false reporting successful in defamation action in English High Court

About this case:

• Citation:
  [2023] EWHC
• Judgment:
  External link
• Court:
  England and Wales High Court
• Judge:
  Mrs Justice Steyn

Claimant Murtaza Shah raised the action based on the content of a petition posted on the Change.org website as well as two three videos posted to YouTube and Facebook and two tweets posted by one or more of the defendants. The defendants, Mohammad Imran, Shanaz Saddique, and Riaz Hussain, were at one time involved in the North West UK regional chapter of the Pakistani political party PTI, which was then led by former Prime Minister of Pakistan Imran Khan.

The case was heard in the King’s Bench Division by Mrs Justice Steyn, with the claimant represented by J Dean and the defendants appearing in person.

Fake news

In the Change.org petition, published by the first defendant, it was alleged that the claimant had been misusing his position as a reporter by reporting news that he knew to be false with the aim of misleading his audience and “fuelling prejudice and hatred” against the government of Pakistan and thus causing distress to overseas Pakistanis. The petition was accompanied by a video in Urdu in which the first defendant encouraged people to sign the petition and called the reporting of the claimant “baseless” and “fake news”. A second video on the same lines followed later.

The second defendant had tweeted in support of the petition quoting another tweet encouraging people to “expose corrupt journalists”, and a second tweet which stated that “corrupt and biased media personals [sic] in UK… must be kicked out from the community”. Another video in Urdu, uploaded by the third defendant to Facebook, said that the claimant consistently tried to target Mr Khan in order to “save his bosses above him” and that what he was doing was harming Pakistan.

It was argued for the claimant that the words chosen were intended to be taken as an attack on his professional values as a journalist and thus were defamatory. It was intended to be taken from the videos that he had knowingly manipulated his reporting so as to distort facts and that by declaring that there was “good news” after the first defendant stated that the claimant had done completely factual reporting over the two weeks following the first video, a contrast was being drawn with his earlier reporting.

The defendants denied that the meanings contended for by the claimant reflected the natural and ordinary meanings of the words complained of but did not assert any alternative meanings. It was asserted by the second defendant that her tweets were simply intended to share the petition and support her colleague, and the opinions she quoted were the opinions of others.

Threshold of seriousness

In her decision, Justice Steyn said of the petition: “I agree with the claimant that an unequivocal allegation that a journalist has knowingly publish false or baseless reports strikes at the heart of their professionalism, and undoubtedly meets both the consensus requirement and the threshold of seriousness. The statement of opinion that he has been misusing his professional position for his own purposes also meets those requirements. These are serious allegations to make against a professional journalist.”

On the meaning of the videos, she began by observing: “The task of forming an initial impression of the videos was made more challenging by the fact that they were broadcast in Urdu. I have sought to avoid an over-literal approach but I have necessarily had to approach the task of ascertaining the meaning of the videos through the filters of, first, a transcript of what was said orally, and secondly, a translation of that transcript. I did not have the benefit of gaining the immediate impression which the words spoken would have had on the hypothetical viewer of the videos, who would have understood Urdu.”

She continued: “The behaviours described, first, as a journalist, unfairly distorting facts, and secondly, lying repeatedly in a report, are contrary to common, shared values of our society. On balance, I consider that it meets the threshold of seriousness, given the serious allegation that a journalist has distorted facts in his reporting. I also consider that the allegation of joining with other journalists to lie repeatedly in a video report meets the threshold of seriousness.”

Addressing the activities of the other two defendants, Steyn J said: “In my view, both tweets are statements of opinion. Although the allegation that the Claimant is corrupt appears to be a bare comment, the ordinary, reasonable reader would appreciate that it is an opinion based on the Claimant’s reporting (as reflected in the focus in both messages that were quote-tweeted on ‘journalism’). It is obviously defamatory at common law to describe a journalist as corrupt.”

She concluded: “Despite the terms in which the third defendant spoke at the beginning of his video, it would be evident to an ordinary reasonable viewer that he is a political activist who is supportive of PTI and Imran Khan, and expressing critical views of their opponents. The breadth of the statement regarding the people, including the claimant, he considers corrupt is indicative that it is a statement of opinion, and it can be inferred that the basis of the allegation that the claimant is corrupt is the content of his journalism.”

Justice Steyn therefore found that the publications complained of were defamatory at common law.