Factual and Procedural Background
This case concerns a campaign of street protests, online publications, and sticker distributions conducted in 2014 targeting three individuals, including the Plaintiff, who were denounced as murderers responsible for the torture, drugging, beating, sexual assault, and subsequent death of a young woman in Beirut in 2004. The campaign was organised and directed by the fifth Defendant for payment from one or more undisclosed Clients. The first and second Defendants assisted the fifth Defendant, with the third Defendant being the fifth Defendant's fiancée and the fourth Defendant a company controlled by the fifth Defendant.
The campaign included two street demonstrations in London in June and November 2014, online publications on various websites and social media platforms, and sticker distributions around the Plaintiff’s London home area. The Plaintiff initiated proceedings in December 2014 alleging libel and harassment contrary to the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. Initially, the claims were against Persons Unknown, but the Plaintiff identified the first four Defendants, and later joined the fifth Defendant, limiting the claim against him to harassment due to limitation periods.
The main legal issues concerned publication within the jurisdiction, each defendant's responsibility, defamatory meanings, harm to reputation, harassment, and the merits of affirmative defences. The Defendants relied on defences of public interest in libel and that their conduct was either for preventing or detecting crime or reasonable in the circumstances in harassment. The trial lasted ten days, with extensive documentary and witness evidence considered.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether and to what extent the acts complained of involved publication within the jurisdiction.
- The existence and extent of each Defendant's responsibility for those acts involving publication.
- The defamatory meanings of the publications complained of.
- Whether those publications caused serious harm to the Plaintiff’s reputation sufficient for libel.
- Whether the Defendants’ roles involved a course of conduct amounting to harassment, and whether they knew or ought to have known this.
- The merits of the affirmative defences: (a) public interest defence to libel and (b) defences to harassment based on purpose and reasonableness.
Arguments of the Parties
Defendants' Arguments
- The campaign constituted the exercise of rights of protest and freedom of expression.
- The fifth Defendant reasonably believed in the truth of the allegations regarding the death and abuse of the young woman and the Plaintiff’s involvement.
- The allegations were true or substantially true, including that the Plaintiff was complicit in crimes committed against the victim.
- Affirmative defences were raised: publication on a matter of public interest for libel, and that the conduct was for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime or was reasonable for harassment.
- Some Defendants denied knowledge of the Plaintiff being a target before the June Event and denied responsibility for certain publications or events.
- The Defendants contended that the campaign was justified and reasonable in all circumstances.
Plaintiff's Arguments
- The Plaintiff denied any knowledge or involvement in the alleged criminal activity.
- The Plaintiff contended he was the victim of a malicious campaign of vilification and harassment, instigated by the Kazakh authorities.
- The Plaintiff sought damages for libel and harassment and injunctions to restrain further publication.
- The Plaintiff challenged the truthfulness and reasonableness of the Defendants’ allegations and conduct.
- The Plaintiff sought disclosure of the identity of the Clients funding the campaign.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent |
Rule or Principle Cited For |
Application by the Court |
| Re H [1996] AC 563 |
Standard of proof in civil cases involving serious allegations; balance of probabilities with flexibility depending on gravity. |
The court applied a flexible civil standard of proof, taking account of the seriousness of the allegations against the Plaintiff. |
| Re B (Children) [2009] EWCA Civ 1048 |
Clarification of flexible approach to civil standard of proof in serious cases. |
Supported the approach to proof adopted in this case regarding serious allegations. |
| Hollington v F Hewthorn & Co Ltd [1943] KB 587 |
Common law rule excluding court or tribunal findings as evidence of guilt or innocence in civil proceedings. |
Applied to exclude foreign convictions and findings as evidence of guilt or innocence in this libel and harassment case. |
| Three Rivers DC v Bank of England (No 3) [2003] 2 AC 1 |
Support for the common law rule excluding findings of investigative bodies as evidence of truth in civil cases. |
Confirmed the exclusion of investigative findings in this case. |
| King v Lewis [2004] EWCA Civ 1329 |
Principles on publication of online material; publication occurs where material is accessed and read. |
Applied to assess whether online publications were made within the jurisdiction. |
| Watts v Times Newspapers Ltd [1997] QB 650 |
Liability for publication arises from participation or authorisation; passive involvement insufficient. |
Used to determine each Defendant’s responsibility for publication. |
| Bunt v Tilley [2007] 1 WLR 1243 |
Active involvement required for liability; passive instrumental role insufficient. |
Applied to assess Defendants’ roles in the publication process. |
| Underhill v Corser [2010] EWHC 1195 |
Awareness of defamatory publication without action to prevent does not establish liability. |
Referenced in considering Defendants’ responsibility. |
| Thornton v Telegraph Media Group [2010] EWHC 1414 |
Definition of defamation; defamatory meaning assessed by reasonable reader. |
Applied in determining defamatory meanings of publications. |
| Jeynes v News Magazines Ltd [2008] EWCA Civ 130 |
Principles for determining natural and ordinary meaning of words. |
Guided the court’s approach to assessing meanings of the publications. |
| Dee v Telegraph Media Group Ltd [2010] EWHC 924 |
Test for identifying a single publication across multiple statements. |
Applied to assess whether multiple online posts constituted one publication. |
| Sobrinho v Impresa Publishing SA [2016] EWHC 66 |
Interpretation of the serious harm requirement under the Defamation Act 2013. |
Used to assess whether publications caused serious harm to the Plaintiff’s reputation. |
| Cooke v Midland Heart Ltd [2015] 1 WLR 895 |
Serious harm can be inferred from serious defamatory imputations and widespread publication. |
Supported inference of serious harm in this case. |
| Ames v The Spamhouse Project [2015] EWHC 127 |
Difficulty in obtaining evidence from those who hold a negative view of the claimant. |
Explained the absence of neighbour witnesses despite their alleged reaction. |
| Pratt v DPP [2001] EWHC 483 |
Clarification of the threshold for conduct amounting to a course of conduct under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. |
Referenced in determining whether Defendants’ conduct constituted a course of conduct. |
| Merelie v Newcastle PCT [2004] EWHC 2554 |
Factors relevant to whether two or more instances constitute a course of conduct. |
Applied in assessing the continuity and connection of the campaign’s acts. |
| Hayes v Willoughby [2013] UKSC 17 |
Definition of harassment; purpose defence requires rational consideration of evidence. |
Applied in assessing the harassment claim and defences. |
| EDO MGM Technology v Axworthy [2005] EWHC 2490 |
Purpose defence under Protection from Harassment Act 1997. |
Applied to reject the Defendants’ claim that their dominant purpose was preventing or detecting crime. |
| Thomas v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 1233 |
Reasonableness defence in harassment claims balancing freedom of expression and protection from harassment. |
Guided the court’s assessment of the reasonableness defence. |
| Trimingham v Associated Newspapers Ltd [2012] EWHC 1296 |
Application of Human Rights Act in balancing freedom of expression and privacy in harassment claims. |
Applied in the assessment of reasonableness and proportionality. |
| Majrowski v Guy's and St Thomas's NHS Trust [2006] UKHL 34 |
Definition and scope of harassment under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. |
Referenced in defining harassment as oppressive and unreasonable conduct causing distress. |
| Law Society v Kordowski [2011] EWHC 3185 |
Truth is not a defence to harassment; conduct may be harassment even if allegations are true. |
Applied in considering the relationship between truth and harassment. |
| Rantzen v Mirror Group Newspapers (1986) Ltd [1994] QB 670 |
Damages for libel must be proportionate and compensate for harm to reputation and feelings. |
Guided the assessment of damages in this case. |
| Purnell v Business F1 Magazine Ltd [2007] EWCA Civ 1382 |
Reasoned judgment provides vindication; damages must reflect actual harm. |
Considered in awarding damages and vindication. |
| Cairns v Modi [2012] EWCA Civ 1382 |
Vindication through reasoned judgment in defamation cases. |
Applied in the context of damages and vindication. |
| Slazenger v Feltham (No 2) (1889) RPC 531 |
On intention to publish and establishing publication within jurisdiction. |
Applied in assessing publication within the jurisdiction. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court undertook a detailed and methodical analysis of the facts, evidence, and legal principles. The campaign was found to have involved multiple acts of publication within the jurisdiction, including street demonstrations, online publications, and sticker distributions, all targeting the Plaintiff and others.
Responsibility for the campaign was attributed primarily to the fifth Defendant, who organised and directed the campaign, and to the company controlled by him. The first and second Defendants were responsible for significant parts of the campaign, including the demonstrations and online publications. The third Defendant was found not legally responsible due to lack of knowledge and involvement.
The court assessed the defamatory meanings of the statements and found that reasonable readers would understand them as accusing the Plaintiff of murder and serious criminal involvement in the victim’s death and related crimes. These meanings were serious and capable of causing serious harm to reputation.
The court found that the campaign constituted a course of conduct amounting to harassment under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. The conduct was oppressive, unreasonable, and calculated to cause alarm and distress. The Defendants knew or ought to have known the harassing nature of their conduct.
The Defendants’ affirmative defences were examined. The public interest defence to libel was rejected because the first and second Defendants did not hold a reasonable belief that publication was in the public interest, nor did they conduct adequate inquiries. The purpose defence under the harassment claim was rejected as the campaign was not pursued dominantly for preventing or detecting crime. The reasonableness defence was rejected as the campaign was highly unreasonable, involving a fabricated and staged protest with malicious intent.
The court scrutinised the Defendants’ evidence supporting the truth of the allegations. It found the evidence to be largely documentary, hearsay, and unreliable, especially given the provenance from a corrupt regime and lack of direct witness testimony. The forensic reports on cause of death were conflicting and insufficient to establish murder. The Defendants failed to prove that the Plaintiff was involved in any criminal conduct or murder, and the case against him was inadequately particularised and unsupported.
The court emphasised the need for careful balancing of the right to freedom of expression with the right to privacy and protection from harassment. The Defendants’ conduct crossed the threshold into oppressive and unjustifiable harassment.
Damages were awarded to compensate for injury to reputation and feelings, while injunctions were granted to restrain further libel and harassment. The Plaintiff was permitted to amend the claim to seek disclosure of the identities of the Clients funding the campaign.
Holding and Implications
The court held as follows:
- The fifth Defendant was liable for harassment only, as the libel limitation period had expired against him. His conduct in organising and directing the campaign was oppressive, unreasonable, and harassing. The truth of the allegations was not established, and the application to amend the defence to include murder allegations was refused.
- The first Defendant was liable for libel and harassment arising from the June Event and consequential online publications. The public interest defence failed.
- The second Defendant was liable for libel and harassment for publications at both the June and November Events, online publications, and sticker distribution. The public interest defence failed.
- The fourth Defendant (the company) was liable for all libel and harassment conduct attributable to the campaign. It did not rely on the public interest defence, and its other defences failed.
- The third Defendant was not liable, having had no sufficient knowledge or involvement to make her responsible.
Damages awarded totaled £80,000 against the company, £65,000 against the second Defendant, £40,000 against the first Defendant, and £30,000 in harassment damages against the fifth Defendant. Injunctions were granted against all liable Defendants to restrain further similar publications.
The Plaintiff was granted permission to amend the claim to seek disclosure of the identities of the Clients funding the campaign, to enable potential claims against them. No new legal precedent was established beyond the application of existing principles to the facts.