KB-2022-003483 - [2025] EWHC 1912 (KB)

Save in one or two very minor respects, my conclusions as to the single natural and ordinary meaning of the words complained of accords with the initial impressions that I formed and noted.

The natural and ordinary meaning of the words complained of in Passage A is that “The First Claimant had colluded with the district administration of Kotli in preventing action being taken in respect of the mistreatment of Mr Sabeel in jail”. In so far as this is slightly different from the Claimants’ pleaded meaning, Mr Wilcox did not dispute this meaning when I raised it with him during his oral submissions.

I agree with the four pleaded meanings relating to the First Claimant in respect of Passage B that I have set out at para 78 above.

I agree with the three pleaded meanings relating to the Second Claimant in respect of Passage C that I have set out at para 78 above, save that I do not consider that the words referred to Mr Yasin himself torturing Mr Sabeel other than by burning him with cigarettes. Accordingly, the third meaning in respect of Passage C is that “The Second Claimant tortured Mr Sabeel by burning him with cigarettes”.

I agree with the pleaded meanings relating to the Second Claimant in respect of Passages D and E that I have set out at para 78 above.

I agree with the pleaded meanings relating to the First Claimant in respect of Passages F and G that I have set out at para 78 above.

I agree with the pleaded meanings relating to the Second Claimant in respect of Passages H and K that I have set out at para 78 above. My initial impression was that Passage H indicated that the Second Claimant held the compromising photos of the official’s daughter in order to blackmail her, as opposed to the words indicating that he had blackmailed her. However, on reflection, and after hearing Mr Wilcox’s submissions on this point, I accept that, read in context with the other misconduct reported by Mr Sabeel, Passage H, contains a statement about what the Second Claimant has done, as opposed to a view about something he would do in the future.

I agree with the three pleaded meanings relating to the Second Claimant in respect of Passage I which I have set out at para 78 above, save, as I have already indicated at para 83 above, the third meaning is that “The Second Claimant tortured Mr Sabeel by burning him with cigarettes”.

I agree with the pleaded meaning relating to the Second Claimant in respect of Passage J which I have set out at para 78 above.

I agree with the pleaded meanings relating to the First Claimant in respect of Passages L, M, O and Q, which I have set out at para 78 above.

I agree with the pleaded meanings relating to the Second Claimant in respect of Passages N and P, which I have also set out at para 78 above.

In arriving at these meanings I considered Mr Kelly’s submissions, directing myself in accordance with the principles I identified at paras 58 – 59 above. I have no doubt that in relation to both videos, the Defendant adopted and endorsed Mr Sabeel’s statements. The Defendant made a number of statements in the videos which clearly associated him with the allegations made by his interviewee. In the Long Video he introduced the interview by saying:

“What happened with this young man? Why was he imprisoned? Who sexually assaulted him? Let’s hear these things from him. Hearing these things, you will also be dumbfounded like me. That’s why: I am sitting before him. Today I will talk to him.”

These words unequivocally presented Mr Sabeel’s account as a credible one and one that had had a considerable impact upon the Defendant. These words also gave specific endorsement to the allegation that Mr Sabeel had been sexually assaulted whilst in prison.

Furthermore, the Defendant concluded the interview footage in the Long Video by saying:

“Thanks very much for your time, Sabeel. You were wronged. That’s why I talked to you and I will talk to you again. I wanted to hear you to know what was going on in our region and that in 21^st Century. If this cruelty is the order of the day, then I will have to ponder who is responsible for it. Take care. Thanks for your time.” (Emphasis added.)

It is quite clear from this passage, particularly the phrases I have italicised, that the Defendant was endorsing Mr Sabeel’s account.

In both videos, after hearing Mr Sabeel’s allegations of mistreatment in prison, the Defendant said, “May these people be destroyed”. Whist he may have been referring to those responsible for running the prison (as opposed to the Claimants), this remark indicates that he was giving credence to Mr Sabeel’s account.

I also note that in both videos the Defendant asks leading questions, introducing serious allegations against the Claimants before Mr Sabeel has made them. At 02:10 minutes into the Long Video the Defendant asked, “Whom and how does he blackmail?” before this allegation has been made by Mr Sabeel. At 06:20 minutes into the Long Video the Defendant asked, “Were you sexually assaulted there?”, prior to Mr Sabeel having mentioned that he was sexually assaulted whilst in prison. At 07:13 minutes, the Defendant asked, “Who burnt you with cigarette?” before Mr Sabeel had said he had been treated in this way. At 16:31 minutes, the Defendant asked Mr Sabeel what he had seen when he worked for the First Claimant, adding “Whom did they blackmail and how? Have you any evidence?”. After Mr Sabeel then gave a description of blackmail (at Passage F), the Defendant commented at 17:59 minutes, “So it happened”. The same leading questions regarding the sexual assault, the burning with cigarettes and blackmail also appear, respectively, at 01:41, 02:21 and 05:24 minutes into the Short Video. I also bear in mind that the captions set out in Passages N and O were displayed throughout the running time of the Short Video.

There was nothing to counteract the clear impression that the Defendant was adopting and endorsing Mr Sabeel’s account. He was not, for example, questioned in a challenging manner that suggested there were potential credibility issues with his account.

Accordingly, in arriving at the natural and ordinary meaning of the words used, I have proceeded on the basis that the Defendant adopted and endorsed Mr Sabeel’s account. To adopt the commonly used terminology, these were “Chase 1” meanings (para 57 above). Although the alleged disclaimers were not pleaded in the Defence, Mr Wilcox did not object to the Defendant’s reliance upon them. In so far as they are relied upon in respect of the meaning of the words complained of (in addition to supporting the publication on a matter of public interest defence), it will suffice for present purposes to indicate that I reject the Defendant’s account regarding the presence of the disclaimers. I address this in detail when I come to the public interest defence.