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

I have already summarised the Claimants’ evidence regarding the impact of the matters complained of (paras 103 - 108 above). I set out my findings regarding their evidence and as to the inferences that can be drawn from the circumstances when I addressed “serious harm” (paras 111 – 117 above).

I direct myself in accordance with the legal principles that I identified at paras 70 – 72 above. I bear in mind the purpose of compensatory damages and that the sums awarded must be sufficient to afford vindication for each of the Claimants and reflect the humiliation and distress that they have been occasioned, in addition to the damage to their reputations. I will make a single award for each Claimant that combines general damages and a modest element for aggravating features.

I accept Mr Wilcox’s submission that each Claimant should be awarded the same amount of damages. The First Claimant is the more prominent politician at present and, thus, it might be said, has the more to lose. However, the Second Claimant is the upcoming politician who potentially has the majority of his political career ahead of him; and thus, in that sense, it could be said that he has more to lose. I find that these features balance each other out.

In assessing the appropriate level of the awards, the gravity of the libel is the most important factor. In this instance, I have accepted that the words complained of entailed very serious statements of fact to the effect that the Claimants had been involved in blackmail, sexual abuse, theft of public monies and corruption. The Second Claimant was also said to have orchestrated torture and burnt a prisoner with cigarettes. The Claimants are prominent public figures in Pakistan and these defamatory imputations went to the core of their political and personal identities. I also bear in mind all of the matters that I set out at paras 111 – 112 above, including as to the Defendant’s considerable standing within the Kashmiri Pakistani community both here and abroad, the substantial number of United Kingdom based viewers and the likelihood of percolation.

I have also assessed the Claimants’ evidence and the disclosed comments on the video (paras 114 – 117 above). Whilst I have concluded that there was a significant element of exaggeration in their accounts, I have accepted 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 accept that this has continued for a considerable period of time and that it was not confined to the immediate period after publication. I further accept that part of the effect of being asked these kinds of intrusive questions is that they will then have felt more uncomfortable and wary when attending other public events. It is also entirely credible that the publication of such serious allegations has caused them considerable worry over the impact upon their political careers, albeit there is no specific supporting evidence of such damage having occurred.

Whilst I bear in mind that this judgment will afford the Claimants a measure of vindication, as will the order I intend to make under section 12 of the 2013 Act (para 158 below), these aspects are ancillary to the award of damages in terms of vindication: Gatley, para 10-045. Furthermore, there has been an intervening period of nearly four years since the publication of the videos.

I identify the following aggravating factors as present:

Mr Wilcox placed particular reliance upon the following awards: Veliu v Mazrekaj [2006] EWHC 1710 (QB), [2007] 1 WLR 495; Berezovsky v Terluk [2010] EWHC 476; Al-Amoudi v Kifle [2011] EWHC 2037; and Sloutsker v Romanova [2015] EWHC 2053 (QB), [2015] EMLR 637. He provided adjusted figures for each of the awards taking account of inflation and, where appropriate, the 10% Simmons v Castle uplift. I show the adjusted figures in parentheses when I refer to these cases below. Mr Wilcox suggested that each of these awards was relevant to my assessment and that Berezovsky and Sloutsker, in particular, were comparable to the present case. He suggested that my award to each Claimant should be in the £275,000 - £325,000 range. Relying on the same factors as he had in respect of “serious harm”, Mr Kelly submitted that these figures were far too high.

In Veliu, the defendant newspaper published allegations that the claimant was closely involved with or implicated in the terrorist bombing attacks on the London Underground. The newspaper was widely read in the Albanian community in London and that community numbered around 20,000 people. Eady J described the libel as “one of the gravest imaginable” and of “exceptional gravity”. He noted that the words were published at a time when feelings were running especially high as it was soon after the 7 July 2015 bombings in Central London and that the claimant had suffered great distress and embarrassment and also concern for his physical safety. Eady J determined that an appropriate starting point was £180,000 (£401.885) prior to account being taken of an offer of amends made by the owner.

In Berezovsky, a programme was broadcast on a Russian language television channel which alleged that the claimant had been a knowing party to a criminal conspiracy to avoid his extradition and enable him to claim political asylum in Britain, by procuring a false confession obtained through bribes and drugging the individual, that the claimant was in physical danger if returned to Russia. The allegation was calculated to put at risk the claimant’s refugee status and his leave to remain in the United Kingdom. A defence of justification failed and various evidence was introduced attempting to attack the claimant’s character. Eady J awarded £150,000 (£303,277).

Al-Amoudi concerned a publication in the online news site Ethiopian Review stating that there were reasonable grounds to suspect the claimant of having knowingly financed international terrorism, that he had married his young daughter off to an elderly Saudi royal as a gift, that he was probably responsible for murdering the person whom his daughter had an affair with and he had been hunting his daughter, and his supposed granddaughter, across London in order to ensure their execution in Saudi Arabia by way of flogging, stoning to death or otherwise. HHJ Richard Parkes QC, sitting as a Judge of the High Court, considered that “it is difficult to imagine more serious allegations”. The article was still available at the time of the hearing and the Court was satisfied that there was a substantial Ethiopian exile community in this jurisdiction and that the likely readership of the article would have been several thousand people. The claimant’s evidence as to the impact of the article was accepted and there were a number of specific aggravating features identified, including that the defendant had repeated the libels and abused the claimant. HHJ Richard Parkes awarded £175,000 (£330,456).

In Sloutsker, the words complained of were published in a number of online publications by the defendant journalist. The claimant, a former senator in the Senate of the Russian Foundation, was accused of taking out a contract to murder the defendant’s husband, of bribing court officials in Russian criminal proceedings and fabricating evidence in those proceedings. No defence was filed and the defendant played no part in defending the claim. Damages were assessed on the claimant’s unchallenged case and on the basis that the publications could easily have reached as many as 60,000 people. Warby J (as he then was) awarded £110,000 (£188, 518, or £171,380 without the uplift).

I have summarised the circumstances of the four cases relied upon by Mr Wilcox in order to briefly show why, in my judgment, each of them involved particularly serious libels and damage to the claimants that went beyond the circumstances of the present case. I also note that none of these cases involved a finding, as I have made here, that the claimant had put forward an exaggerated account of the consequential impact of the libel. More generally, every case involves an individualised fact-sensitive assessment and there is limited assistance to be obtained from earlier awards.

Having regard to all the relevant circumstances I have identified in this case, I conclude that an award of £130,000 to each claimant affords appropriate vindication of their reputation and reflects the damage that has been suffered.