[2025] EWHC 2114 (KB)

As I have already noted, the claimant has brought this action because he believes that statements made in the Documentary and the Drama about the alleged rape of Banaz Mahmod by the three men who killed her, namely, Mohammed Hama, Mohammed Ali, and Omar Hussain, implicate the claimant, given that the three men are part of or closely associated with the claimant’s family and were acting on his instructions in carrying out the murder. He considers that a viewer or, at any rate a Kurdish viewer, would conclude, having viewed the Documentary and/or the Drama, that the claimant had something to do with the alleged rape, having ordered it to occur, or having approved its occurring, or having allowed it to occur.

The claimant also strongly disputes that there is reliable evidence that Banaz Mahmod was actually raped by Hama, Ali, and Hussain. He heavily criticises the defendant and the production companies that made the Documentary and the Drama, respectively, for suggesting that she was raped. He criticises their reliance, for example, on a transcript of a recording of a phone call made by Hama while in prison, during which he boasted about having raped Banaz Mahmod before killing her. The claimant relies on the fact that neither Hama, nor anyone else, has ever been charged with or convicted of raping Banaz Mahmod.

The claimant appears to believe that he can use this defamation claim as a vehicle to challenge the allegation in the Documentary and the Drama that Banaz Mahmod was raped. That, of course, is wrong. The purpose of a defamation claim is to litigate the question of whether the claimant’s reputation has been caused serious harm by a defamatory statement or statements made by the defendant. The focus is therefore solely on the impact on the claimant’s reputation (in this case, of course, the claimant being a convicted murderer) of one or more identified statements made a defendant once the natural and ordinary meaning of the statement or statements has been determined.

I have already ruled that neither the Documentary nor the Drama, properly understood, conveys the meaning for which the claimant contends, namely, that the claimant was involved in the alleged rape of his niece, Banaz, by others, namely, Hama, Ali, and Hussain.