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

The Particulars of Claim pleaded that the imputations conveyed by the videos constituted very serious defamatory allegations (para 34). The Court was invited to infer that serious harm had been caused to the Claimants’ reputations by each publication in light of the following (paras 35 – 36):

In addition to the inferences to be drawn from these matters, reliance was placed on the evidence of the First and Second Claimants.

The First Claimant’s witness statement dated 13 November 2024 said that the allegations had been incredibly damaging and had “made me a laughing stock amongst some segments of the community”. He said that some people had believed the allegations and had called or visited him asking him about his involvement and others had told him they did not know who to believe. He had to keep telling people that it was all lies, which he found very embarrassing, humiliating and upsetting. He added that “although matters have calmed down a lot from when these allegations first came out” his political opponents and business rivals continued to share this false information and he continued to receive comments and taunts “everywhere I go, whether in the UK or Pakistan” and that at social functions he had seen people sniggering at him.

The First Claimant confirmed the contents of his statement in his evidence in chief. With the Court’s permission, he was asked to elaborate on certain aspects by Mr Wilcox. However, although invited to give further details, most of his answers addressed matters on the same level of generality as his witness statement had done. He did add that whenever he came to the United Kingdom these matters were brought up by supporters, friends and relatives; and that whenever he went to social events he was asked “What is this?”. However, he did not give examples of particular events or occasions where this had occurred.

In cross examination, the First Claimant confirmed that he did not suggest that his businesses had suffered as a result of the videos. He maintained that his reputation had been badly damaged, although he accepted that the situation had calmed down to some extent with the passage of time. He described his popularity as a politician, saying that he had served and uplifted his community and as a result they had loved and supported him. He agreed with the proposition that he was an extremely popular politician amongst the AJK Pakistani community in the United Kingdom, but he said that his reputation had been tarnished by the Defendant’s publication of the videos and that he was worried about the impact upon the 2026 election and whether he would be re-elected.

In his witness statement dated 13 November 2024, the Second Claimant said that many people had called him to tell him about the allegations after the videos were published and that because of the Defendant’s extensive following on social media, the videos “spread like wildfire in the community”. He said that many people assumed the videos were true and, although he kept telling people that this was not the case, the damage had been done. Dealing with this was very embarrassing for him. He said that since the allegations “my life has turned upside down as people believe I am a sexual abuser which is the worst thing you can be called in a conservative community”. He indicated that his political opponents kept taunting him about these matters and that he was worried the allegations would put an end to his political career.

The Second Claimant confirmed his witness statement in his evidence in chief. In response to additional questions from Mr Wilcox, he said that people would question him about what was said in the videos when they came to visit and that he had received “hundreds” of telephone calls from people in both the United Kingdom and Pakistan on this topic. He thought that because the Defendant was a well-known journalist people had assumed that the contents of the videos must be true. When asked to give examples of people asking him about the publications when he was in the United Kingdom, the Second Claimant said that it had happened in Stoke on Trent, Bradford and Manchester, amongst other places. When asked again to give examples of what people had said to him, he said that they had asked whether the sexual abuse allegations were true. He said that the Defendant’s interview with Mr Sabeel was the first thing he was asked about by every person he met at his nephew’s wedding. When asked to give an example of his political opponents taunting him about Mr Sabeel’s allegations, the Second Claimant said that it had happened in both Pakistan and the United Kingdom. When asked by Mr Wilcox when he first became aware that he was being taunted in this way, he said that it was when he came out of prison, as it was on social media.

In response to Mr Kelly’s questions in cross examination, the Second Claimant agreed that he had been elected to the AJKLA despite being remanded in prison in respect of murder allegations. He said that this was because his father was so popular, having served the State so well for 35 years. He accepted that since the videos were published, he had been made a Minister in the current coalition government (from June 2023). He said his appointment was a decision made by his party, not by the electorate. He maintained that he had received hundreds of telephone calls asking him about the contents of the videos, but indicated that he had not received any emails on this topic. When asked about texts and WhatsApp messages, he said he had changed his telephone about three or four times in the intervening period (and did not realise that he would still be able to access the WhatsApp messages). He agreed that he had suffered no consequential financial loss, but stressed that the publications had caused him real embarrassment. He said that the trust of the people was not like it had been and that he was not as popular a politician as he used to be. In re-examination, he observed that it was relatively common in Pakistan for prominent politicians to spend time in jail as a result of the actions of their political opponents, but it did affect their popularity.

Mr Kelly contended that the words complained of had not caused and were not likely to cause serious harm to the Claimants’ reputation. He emphasised that both Claimants’ evidence was devoid of examples of their reputations having been damaged in the eyes of their electors. They had been, and were still, very popular politicians with the AJK electorate. Mr Kelly argued that there was no tangible evidence of loss of reputation and that the alleged harm was speculative. He noted that the videos were taken down four days after they were broadcast and he suggested that the majority of the disclosed comments on the Defendant’s Facebook page about the Short Video were supportive of the Claimants.