KB-2022-003483 - [2025] EWHC 1912 (KB)
King's / Queen's Bench Division of the High Court

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

Fecha: 25-Jul-2025

The Claimants’ case

The Claimants’ case

78.

The Claimants’ pleaded case on the natural and ordinary meaning of the words complained of is as follows:

Long Video: First Claimant:

Passage A: the First Claimant colluded with the entire district administration of Kotli in preventing action being taken in respect of the persecution and mistreatment of Mr Sabeel in jail;

Passage B: the First Claimant deliberately caused a fake case to be brought against Mr Sabeel which led Mr Sabeel to be imprisoned;

Passage B: the First Claimant burnt down the government offices of Benish Jaraal;

Passage B: the First Claimant wanted to defame Benish Jaraal;

Passage B: the First Claimant improperly sought to have Bennish Jaraal transferred from her official position;

Passage F: the First Claimant has been involved in blackmail;

Passage F: when approached for assistance with employment by families in the area, the First Claimant would focus upon securing the details of their daughters with a view to blackmailing them in the future;

Passage G: the First Claimant has a property in Islamabad where he (and/or his family members) engage in acts of lewdness which is funded by the considerable wealth he had looted from AJK;

Passage G: the First Claimant sourced the income for his family business from the selling off of government land, the expropriation (“grabbing”) of land from weak people, and the further expropriation of monies from other schemes involving tax-payer’s money.

Long Video: Second Claimant:

Passage C: the Second Claimant was involved in orchestrating the sexual assault and torture of Mr Sabeel;

Passage C: the Second Claimant filmed the sexual assault of Mr Sabeel by two of the Second Clamant’s gunmen in prison, and did so in order to blackmail Mr Sabeel to give evidence against Benish Jaraal;

Passage C: the Second Claimant burnt Mr Sabeel with cigarettes and otherwise tortured him;

Passage D: the Second Claimant threatened the jail superintendent with transfer if he intervened to stop Mr Sabeel’s mistreatment by the Second Claimant and/or the Second Claimant’s men;

Passage E: the Second Claimant had a secret phone on which he had compromising photos and/or footage of the daughter of an education officer which he used for the purposes of blackmail.

Short Video: First Claimant:

Passage L: the First Claimant had been involved in blackmail;

Passage M: the First Claimant had sourced his income from the selling off of government land;

Passages O and Q: the First Claimant blackmailed and sexually assaulted girls, and blackmailed other people.

Short Video: the Second Claimant:

Passages H and K: the Second Claimant blackmailed the daughter of an official of the Education Department with compromising photos of her;

Passage I: the Second Claimant was involved in orchestrating the sexual assault and torture of Mr Sabeel;

Passage I: the Second Claimant filmed the sexual assault of Mr Sabeel by two of the Second Claimant’s gunmen in prison, and did so in order to blackmail Mr Sabeel into give evidence against Benish Jaraal;

Passage I: the Second Claimant burnt Mr Sabeel with cigarettes and otherwise tortured him;

Passage J: the Second Claimant threated the jail superintendent with transfer if he intervened to stop Mr Sabeel’s maltreatment by the Second Claimant and/or the Second Claimant’s men;

Passages N and P: the Second Claimant subjected Mr Sabeel to sexual assault and burnt Mr Sabeel’s body with cigarettes.

79.

The Defendant’s Defence denied the meanings relied upon by the Claimant, but did not plead any alternative meanings. In his Skeleton Argument, Mr Kelly argued that the words complained of did not bear a defamatory meaning, especially when understood as a report of Mr Sabeel’s statements and in light of the disclaimers. He submitted that the words were presented as the allegations of Mr Sabeel and they were not endorsed by the Defendant.