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

The pleading of publication on a matter of public interest was somewhat vague in the Defendant’s Defence. However, I accept that there is sufficient there for Mr Qureshi to be permitted to raise this defence (and Mr Wilcox did not press the contrary position).

Mr Qureshi’s defence was clarified by his evidence and by Mr Kelly’s skeleton argument. In his witness statement (which he adopted in his evidence in chief), the Defendant said that he felt it was important in the interests of freedom of expression to provide Mr Sabeel with a platform to talk about the serious matters he had raised at the 28 October 2021 press conference, as these were plainly matters of public interest and societal importance. He said that along with Mr Raja Haseeb Ahmed, his Programme Producer, he had worked hard to get different viewpoints on what had happened following Mr Sabeel’s press conference on 28 October 2021. He said that they had tried “many times” to talk to the Claimants and to find out what they had to say.

In cross examination, the Defendant said that he always investigated first and would never publish a story without having done so. He described the pre-publication obligations of a journalist as including undertaking the research, collecting the evidence and speaking to all the relevant sources. He said he had investigated this story from May 2021 until it was published on 1 November 2021. However, he also said that he first heard about Mr Sabeel’s allegations shortly after the press conference on 28 October 2021. Mr Qureshi said he had a team of more than ten people based in Pakistan, including his producer, his script writer, his researcher and his graphic designer; and that when Mr Sabeel spoke to him on the morning of 1 November 2021 the team was already conducting investigations. He said he had told Mr Ahmed by phone what he wanted him to look into and what he wanted him to raise with the Claimants; and that subsequently Mr Ahmed had reported back to him by phone. He agreed that he must have made notes at the time, but he indicated that he did not retain these and so was unable to provide them. He accepted that Mr Ahmed had sent him the WhatsApp message referred to in his affidavit (para 124 below). Mr Qureshi said he had not retained any other notes or records from the investigation.

When Mr Wilcox asked Mr Qureshi whether he believed that Mr Sabeel’s account was true, he said it was for the public to decide if it was true or not. However, he also said that he would not have published it unless he had believed it to be true. The Defendant agreed that he had not offered the Claimants an apology, nor published a retraction at any stage.

The Defendant drew attention to the disclaimers that currently appear on his YouTube channel and Facebook page, which say:

“The views and opinions expressed during this or any program are those of the guests and do not necessarily represent the views, policies, or endorsement of Gorakh Dhanda Limited. While we aim to provide a platform for diverse perspectives, these views should not be considered as facts.

Gorakh Dhanda Limited takes no responsibility for any inaccuracies or misrepresentations made during this and any program. We encourage individuals to verify any information presented independently.”

Mr Qureshi said that the disclaimers had always been there from the start of his YouTube channel and Facebook page. The disclaimers were in Urdu and in English. He said they were visible on the YouTube channel and on the Facebook page and also on the videos themselves if they were played through the playlist. The Defendant’s YouTube Channel is now called “Gorakh Dhanda with Abrar Qureshi”.

Mr Ahmed’s affidavit (para 124 above) was dated 1 February 2024. He said that he went to the Islamabad resident of the First Claimant on 29 October 2021, as instructed by the Defendant, in order to obtain his response to Mr Sabeel’s allegations. He said that upon seeing the media card around his neck, the staff at the gate of the house stopped him and told him to wait. They did not allow him to go into the property and although he told them the reason for his visit, they returned 15 minutes later and informed him that Mr Chaudhry did not want to meet him. Mr Ahmed said that after this he had sent a WhatsApp message to Mr Chaudhry who had replied asking him to call him. However, when he had then called him and indicated that he wanted to ask him about Mr Sabeel’s allegations, the First Claimant had refused to do so and had used “inappropriate language” before putting the phone down on him. Mr Ahmed said he tried calling again, but that this time there was no answer.

The First Claimant denied Mr Ahmed’s account and denied that he had received any contact from or on behalf of the Defendant in relation to Mr Sabeel’s allegations before the videos were published. The suggestion of contact by Mr Ahmed with the Second Claimant was only raised in the Defendant’s oral evidence and was not put to Mr Yasin when he gave evidence.

Mr Kelly did not take issue with the majority of Ms Sultana’s witness statement (para 18 above). She exhibited a screenshot of the Defendant’s original YouTube channel taken on 23 May 2023. This shows no disclaimer at the top of the screen, in contrast to a screen shot taken that day of the new channel. She noted that no disclaimer appears in the Long Video shared by another YouTube user (para 111(vi) above), which remains available on his channel. Ms Sultana said she was able to peruse the Defendant’s new YouTube channel as far back as 23 March 2023 and the earliest video uploaded to it did not have a disclaimer attached to it. Mr Kelly did challenge para 10 of Ms Sultana’s statement, where she said she had been able to access videos on the Defendant’s original YouTube channel from October and November 2021 and they did not have disclaimers in them. He put to her that a disclaimer was present at the top of these videos and at the top of the playlist, which she disputed.