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

The Long and the Short Videos were in Urdu. The parties had agreed translations of both of these videos. I append the agreed translation of the Long Video at Appendix 1 to this judgment; and the agreed translation of the Short Video at Appendix 2. The Defendant removed the videos approximately four days after their publication. On the first day of the trial, the Defendant provided sheets of comments that were made by viewers of the videos on his Facebook page, along with an Urdu to English translation. This document had not been disclosed earlier, as it should have been. Following helpful input from the Claimants’ solicitor, Ushrat Sultana (who speaks Urdu), an agreed version of the translated comments was available by the start of the second day of the trial. The agreed translation of the comments appears at Appendix 3 to this judgment. Both videos were available for me to view.

There were a number of additional evidential issues that I had to deal with during the course of the trial.

Both of the Claimants filed and served witness statements and gave oral evidence. I permitted Mr Wilcox to ask supplementary questions relating to the alleged damage to their reputations.

The Defendant had filed and served a witness statement dated 11 November 2024. The statement was in English and included a Statement of Truth. At the start of the second day of the trial, Mr Kelly indicated that Mr Qureshi would require an interpreter when he gave evidence. He proposed that once the Claimants’ evidence had concluded, the trial be adjourned to the following day to allow time for the interpreter arranged by Mr Qureshi to attend. This was a matter of concern as para 3 of Swift J’s Order dated 6 March 2025 (following the Pre-Trial Review) had stated that the Defendant should make any application for permission to rely upon the services of a Court approved interpreter for the giving of his oral evidence by 4pm on 14 March 2025, but no such application had been made by the specified date or at all. However, there was also a more fundamental concern that I raised with Mr Kelly, namely that the Defendant’s witness statement was in English, with no indication given in that document that he was not able to fully understand its contents and/or that parts of it had been informally translated for him. The unsatisfactory nature of this position was reinforced by the terms of para 7 of the Order of 29 February 2024 where Master Eastman had provided that if a witness was to give evidence at trial in a language other than English “the witness statement must be in that other language and must be served together with an English translation and a certificate from the translator verifying the translation”.

After reflecting on the matter, Mr Wilcox objected to the Defendant’s witness statement being admitted in evidence and to him giving evidence, as the statement was in breach of the CPR, in that: (i) the statement of truth was not in the witness’ own language, as required by Practice Direction (“PD”) 22 para 2.4 and PD 32 para 20.1; and (ii) the witness statement was not in the witness’ own language as required by CPR Part 32.8 and PD 32 paras 18.1 and 19.1. Mr Wilcox submitted that the Court should refuse to admit the evidence, pursuant to PD 32 para 25.1, as applied by Garnham J in Correia v Williams [2022] EWHC 2824 (KB). Mr Kelly accepted that the identified breaches had occurred, but urged the Court to grant permission to rely on the defective witness statement under PD 32 para 25.2.

Having heard the respective submissions I gave an ex tempore ruling confirming that these breaches of the rules had occurred and that the Defendant’s actions had been less than satisfactory. However, given the relatively limited compass of his relevant evidence, I was satisfied that the interests of justice would be best served by permitting the Defendant to give oral evidence in respect of those parts of his statement that were relevant. This text would be interpreted for him and he would then be asked to confirm that this was his evidence. I was satisfied that neither party would be prejudiced by this course. The Defendant would not be deprived of the opportunity of giving his evidence on relevant matters and Mr Wilcox would then be able to cross examine him on these aspects (which the Claimants had been aware of since November 2024). To ensure that the Claimants were not taken by surprise, I directed that the Defendant’s evidence in chief would be strictly confined to the relevant parts of his witness statement (plus the topic of disclaimers, which I refer to at para 18 below), which I identified as paras 4 – 6, 8 – 13 and 21 – 26. Mr Kelly indicated that he was content with this course.

In the event, a Hindi interpreter, Mr Singh, was able to attend Court from 3pm that same day and so only about an hour of Court time was lost. Although not arranged through the Court, Mr Singh was an accredited interpreter from a recognised agency and Mr Wilcox raised no objection to him interpreting for the Defendant and I was willing to consent to this. The Defendant duly gave evidence in accordance with the arrangements that I have indicated and Mr Wilcox was able to cross examine him.

At the start of the first day of the hearing, Mr Kelly provided disclaimer notices which he said had appeared on the Defendant’s YouTube channel and Facebook page at the time. Mr Wilcox indicated that the Claimants disputed that the disclaimers were present when the videos were published (as opposed to present currently), but that they did not object to Mr Qureshi giving evidence on this topic, provided the Claimants could lead evidence in rebuttal of this proposition. Mr Kelly accepted that in light of the late disclosure of the disclaimers, he could not object to the Claimants’ adducing rebuttal evidence. Accordingly, I gave permission for the Defendant to be asked about the disclaimers in his evidence in chief. Overnight the Claimants provided a witness statement from Ms Sultana, dated 7 July 2025, which addressed the disclaimers. At the start of the second day of the hearing, I admitted her statement and gave permission for her to give oral evidence (as Mr Kelly wanted the opportunity to cross-examine her). Ms Sultana duly gave evidence after the two Claimants had done so.

The trial bundle contained material that was not relevant to the issues before me. In particular, there were various documents relating to an incident at a polling station in AJK where shots had been fired. The Claimants, amongst others, had been arrested and charged in relation to this matter and proceedings were ongoing. The Defendant’s second witness statement dated 14 March 2025 (also in English) was solely concerned with this incident and a number of the exhibits to his first statement also related to this matter. Mr Kelly did not object to the proposition that they were irrelevant to the matters before the Court. It is well established that only evidence of general bad reputation (if it exists), as opposed to specific instances of misconduct or alleged misconduct, is admissible on the question of whether publication of the words complained of caused serious harm to a claimant (para 63 below). The Defendant’s first witness statement also included various other specific allegations and related exhibits, which were irrelevant and thus inadmissible for the same reason. In addition, some further material was irrelevant because it is well established that evidence of damage to a claimant’s reputation arising from earlier publication of the same matter by others is also legally irrelevant to the serious harm question (para 63 below).

In the circumstances, and without objection from Mr Kelly, I directed that the following exhibits to the Defendant’s first witness statement were irrelevant and inadmissible: AQ3 (ps 197 – 199); AQ8 (ps 220 – 225); AQ 10 (ps 232 – 255); AQ11 (ps 256 – 257); AQ12 (ps 258 – 259); AQ14(ps 264 – 268); and AQ15 (ps 269 – 274).

The Defendant also exhibited an affidavit in Urdu from Mr Sabeel, apparently sworn in Pakistan and accompanied by an English translation and a translator’s declaration. I indicated at the outset of the hearing that I would admit the document in evidence, but that I would only attach limited weight to it, given that no CPR compliant witness statement had been served and given Mr Sabeel was not giving oral evidence and the Claimants would not have the opportunity to cross examine him. In any event, the majority of his statement relates to the truth of what he said in his interview with the Defendant and, as I have indicated, a truth defence was not pursued. The Affidavit does confirm that the interview took place on 1 November 2021 and was conducted via a video link.

The Defendant also exhibited an Affidavit document in Urdu from Raja Haseeb Ahmed, along with an English translation and a translator’s declaration. Mr Ahmed said he was a programme producer for the Defendant. He described attempts he had made to speak to the First Claimant prior to the publication of the interview on 1 November 2021. This account was disputed by the First Claimant. I refer to the details of what Mr Ahmed said at para 124 below. I indicated that I would admit this material on the same basis as Mr Sabeel’s Affidavit.