QB-2022-002648 - [2025] EWHC 2565 (KB)

The seventh publication

The Defendant’s pleaded case concerning his sources and concerning his “strenuous efforts” to verify relate to sources in the ISI and in the military and political establishment. The DWS states that “the tweet reflects my analysis/comment, based on information from reliable sources, regarding the involvement of certain individuals within the ISI’s Internal Wing (C Wing) in political interference and horse-trading activities”. It also makes the points that the tweet contains no direct accusation against the Claimant, that it does not name him, and that any connection drawn with him “is purely speculative and unfounded”.

The meaning of this tweet has been held to be “The Claimant is directly involved in political interference”. This meaning is not easy to reconcile with the line adopted in the DWS. Nevertheless, in this particular instance I consider it right to uphold the defence under s.4. My reasons are as follows: (1) literally, the tweet states (a) that “both brigadiers” [i.e. having regard to the clear identification of these individuals in the series of tweets of which this tweet forms part, the Claimant and one other brigadier] belong to the ISI Internal Wing (C Wing) and (b) that the ISI C Wing is involved directly in political interference; (2) statement (a) concerning the Claimant is true, and accordingly there is no reason to doubt that the Defendant reasonably believed it; (3) turning to statement (b), having considered all his written and oral evidence, I have little doubt that the Defendant believed at the time of publication that the ISI C Wing was involved directly in political interference; (4) further, whether or not statement (b) was true, and regardless of the fact that it may also have been reasonable for people to believe the contrary, it is clear from the contemporary materials in the public domain that are before the Court that it was widely believed – and widely reported – that it was true; (5) on this basis, I further find that the Defendant’s belief of statement (b) was reasonable; (6) the suggestion that making any connection with the Claimant “is purely speculative and unfounded” radically misstates the true position; (7) nevertheless, the Defendant is right to say that there is no direct accusation against the Claimant; (8) it would not have been unreasonable for him to believe that all that was being published was that two particular brigadiers were part of an organisation which (as he reasonably believed) was involved directly in political interference; (9) there is no obvious reason why he should not have considered that the public had a right to know that; and (10) in all the circumstances, including that the statement that he published was either true or reasonably believed by the Defendant to be true, and the restrained nature of this particular publication, it was reasonable for him to believe that publishing it was in the public interest.