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

The sixth publication

The like considerations apply to the sixth publication as apply to the previous publications, save that the Defendant’s pleaded case with regard to the allegation contained in the sixth publication (that the Claimant caused the police to make a baseless allegation against the Defendant) is that “He has verified this allegation through his own lawyers in Pakistan who were pressurised by the ISI and forbidden to represent him in the matter”.

The DWS makes no reference to the Defendant’s lawyers, or to verification being obtained from them. It begins by saying that “the tweet in question was made in response to an allegation of bribery levelled against me by the Claimant”. In fact, although the meaning found at the trial of preliminary issues does relate to an allegation of bribery, the Defendant explained at trial that this interpretation did not reflect the underlying facts or the allegations in fact made against him, which involved an alleged dispute with a “dates trader” which had nothing to do with bribery. It is therefore curious that the DWS should say that, as a matter of fact, the tweet was responding to an allegation of bribery instigated by the Claimant. Be that as it may, the thrust of the DWS is to say that the purpose of the tweet was “to refute and challenge the validity of the accusation, rather than to defame or disparage the Claimant personally”, that “the tweet reflects my personal disbelief and frustration at the baseless accusation made against me”, and that “I questioned the logic and credibility of the accusation made against me, emphasising the lack of evidence”.

In cross-examination, the Defendant accepted that he had produced no contemporary material from his lawyers. He said that his lawyer had said that he would not give evidence because he got scared, that “Logic will tell you that a Section Commander has the power [i.e. to do what the tweet says the Claimant did]”, that “The ISI hacked my phone. The report [i.e. from the lawyer] got wiped out”, and (reflecting his evidence with regard to each of the publications) “I did believe it, and that publishing it was in the public interest”.

In light of the lack of consistency between (i) the DWS (ii) the Defendant’s pleaded case and (iii) his oral evidence, in the absence of any contemporary corroborating material, and in spite of the explanations given in cross-examination for that lack of material, I feel unable on the balance of probabilities to accept that the Defendant reasonably believed that it was in the public interest to publish the allegation made against the Claimant in this tweet.