King's / Queen's Bench Division of the High Court

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

Fecha: 25-Jul-2025

Analysis and conclusions

Analysis and conclusions

110.

I have directed myself in accordance with the principles set out at paras 62 – 63 above. As I have indicated, the Claimants rely upon both inferred damage and their evidence of damage to their reputations. Whilst I appreciate that it is necessary to consider each defamatory statement individually (para 63 above), I set out my reasoning on a collective basis in order to avoid repetition, as it applies to each of those statements. I begin with identifying what can be inferred as to the damage to the Claimants’ reputations, before turning to the specific evidence that they rely upon.

111.

In terms of what can safely be inferred in terms of damage to their reputations, I bear in mind the following:

It is common ground that both Claimants are prominent and successful politicians in AJK who are well-known to the extensive diaspora community from that region based in England and Wales and a significant proportion of this cohort are still able to vote in the elections for the AJKLA. It is also accepted that both Claimants have a record of political and social activism both in Pakistan and the United Kingdom and that they have extensive political networks in the United Kingdom;

ii)

It is agreed that the Defendant is a well-known journalist who publishes material that is of particular interest to the Kashmiri Pakistani community in the United Kingdom and elsewhere. At the time when the claim was pleaded (February 2023), his YouTube channel had more than 190,000 subscribers and his Facebook page over 700,000 followers. The numbers have further increased since then;

iii)

It is also agreed that the Long Video and the Short Video would have been of particular interest to the Kashmiri Pakistani community, including those based in the United Kingdom;

iv)

The videos conveyed imputations that the Claimants had been involved in the commission of very serious criminal acts, including blackmail, corruption, theft of public monies and sexual assault. These matters went directly to the Claimants’ personal integrity and to their professional reputations as politicians;

It is known that at least 74,000 people viewed the Short Video on the Defendant’s Facebook page before it was removed. No specific figures are available for the YouTube channel. It is accepted that I am only concerned with the number of viewers in the United Kingdom. It is not possible to arrive at a precise assessment in relation to this. I bear in mind that the videos were removed after four days. However, given the sensationalist nature of their contents, the target audience and the extensive reach of the Defendant’s profile on social media, I consider it likely that the videos were widely viewed amongst the Kashmiri Pakistani community based in the United Kingdom. The figure is unlikely to be below 15,000 people; and

vi)

Furthermore, and for similar reasons, it is likely that the statements percolated more widely, both by word of mouth within the Kashmiri Pakistani community and via social media. An example of the latter appears at page 321 of the bundle, where an individual has re-posted the YouTube video, albeit this re-posting had attracted only 136 views as of 3 November 2021. When cross examining the Second Claimant, Mr Kelly accepted that the videos were “still doing the rounds” on social media. Accordingly, it is likely that the overall number of United Kingdom based viewers is substantially more than the figure I referred to in the previous sub-paragraph.

112.

Given these circumstances, I readily accept that the publication of the words complained of occasioned substantial damage to the reputations of both of the Claimants. The fact that the Claimants were very popular with their electors prior to the publication cuts both ways. On the one hand it may mean, as Mr Kelly emphasised, that the allegations had less of an impact than matters of comparable seriousness would have had upon less well-thought of public figures. On the other hand, it is precisely because the Claimants were popular and well-known that they have much to lose.

113.

At an earlier stage of the litigation, the Defendant sought to rely on the proposition that reputational damage caused by the videos was limited because other media outlets had also carried reports of the allegations that Mr Sabeel made at the 28 October 2021 conference. However, this line of defence was not pursued by Mr Kelly. As I explained at para 63 above, evidence of damage to a claimant’s reputation from earlier publications of the same matter is legally irrelevant (save where a particular hostile remark or adverse event is relied upon, which was not the case here).

114.

I turn to the specific evidence relied upon in support of the Claimants’ case on “serious harm”. Although the Claimants asserted, and the Defendant did not dispute, that the Short Video had received at least 254 comments and 1,700 “likes” at the time of its removal, the comments that the Defendant disclosed at the start of the trial (para 11 above) appeared to come from 40 different people. These comments express a range of views. Some are very supportive of the Claimants. However, at least 11 of these comments are strongly critical of the Claimants and/or appear to give credence to the material published in the video. Furthermore, the number of “likes” tends to indicate that a substantial number of people either accepted what was said in the interview or, at least, found it interesting and potentially credible. Accordingly, this provides some supporting evidence of the damage to the Claimants’ reputations, at least in the more immediate aftermath of the videos’ publication.

115.

I have carefully considered the Claimants’ evidence. I accept that both Claimants have experienced negative comments and intrusive questions arising from the publication of these videos and that this has been a source of embarrassment, distress and worry to them. I also accept that this has continued for a considerable period of time and was not confined to the immediate period after publication, albeit the level has reduced. Accordingly, this constitutes further evidence that damage to their reputations has occurred.

116.

However, I do not accept that the reputational damage sustained has been of the order described in the First and Second Claimants’ witness statements. This is primarily for the following reasons:

There is a striking lack of supporting documentary evidence (other than the comments document belatedly produced by the Defendant). There has been no disclosure of negative emails, texts or social media messages either from erstwhile supporters or opposition politicians. I would expect these sorts of materials to be available if the impact had been as extensive as the Claimants described. It does not appear credible to suggest (insofar as it is suggested), that whilst negative comments were very frequently expressed to them, this was invariably done in person or via telephone calls, so that there is no written record. Further, in so far as they did receive negative messages in a written form, the Second Claimant’s explanation for not providing texts and WhatsApp messages (para 108 above) is also less than convincing;

ii)

Neither Claimant was able to give specific examples of instances where there had faced a negative comment stemming from the publication of these videos, despite being invited to do so several times by Mr Wilcox. I have referred to instances of this at paras 104 and 107 above, although there were a larger number of occasions when this occurred. The overall impression was rather striking. I accept that their memories will have dimmed over the intervening years, but given how hurtful and embarrassing these matters were described as being, it is surprising that neither Claimant was able to describe any examples of the negative approaches that they say were made to them following the publication of the videos;

iii)

There were clear elements of exaggeration in both Claimants’ accounts. The First Claimant said that he was “a laughing stock”, that “everywhere he went” and “whenever he attended a social event” he was questioned about the videos. The Second Claimant said that his life had been “turned upside down” without indicating how this was the case, other than he visits the United Kingdom less frequently than he used to. It is also not credible that on his first visit to the United Kingdom for a long period, in circumstances where he had been elected to the AJKLA in the interim and had been remanded in custody on a murder charge, that the first question everyone asked him was about the Defendant’s videos;

iv)

There was no specific evidence of a loss of political popularity on the part of either Claimant. Even if there had been, it is evident that a high profile politician’s popularity may increase and decrease for all sorts of reasons.

117.

Overall, I do accept that the Claimants’ evidence augments and reinforces the conclusion that I would in any event arrive at through inference that the Defendant’s publication of the statements in question caused serious harm to the reputations of both Claimants. Whilst this is not to the degree that they have alleged, the level of damage comfortably crosses the serious harm threshold.