[2025] EWHC 2114 (KB)

With regard to the Meaning Determination, I have had regard to the well-established principles that apply, as helpfully summarised in Koutsogiannis v The Random House Group Limited [2019] EWHC 48 (QB), [2020] 4 WLR 25 (QBD) at [11]-[12], a passage approved by the Court of Appeal in Millett v Corbyn [2021] EWCA Civ 567 at [8].

In relation to the question of whether a publication is defamatory at common law, I have had regard to the principles set out in Millett v Corbyn at [9]-[10], which summarise two common law requirements (the consensus requirement and the threshold of seriousness) and one statutory requirement (under section 1(1) of the Defamation Act 2013, namely, that serious harm has been caused to the reputation of the claimant).

I have reviewed the statements made in the Documentary and in the Drama that the claimant has set out in part 8 of the APoC as well as the “meanings” attributed to those statements. As the defendant has pointed out in its skeleton argument, many of the statements complained of by the claimant in part 8 of the APoC do not refer to the claimant, either directly or indirectly. In some cases, the words complained of in part 8 of the APoC were not broadcast (and therefore not “published” in that sense) but are stage directions in the transcript.

The claimant’s central concern in bringing this claim is that the Documentary and the Drama convey the meaning that he had some form of involvement in the alleged rape of his niece, Banaz Mahmod and it is that meaning that has led to all of the negative consequences that he alleges he, his family, and his businesses have suffered since the original broadcasts. This is because, the claimant submits, under Kurdish cultural norms, murder and rape are viewed differently.

In part 7(D) of the APoC, the claimant says:

“It is clear that Banaz was brutally murdered. There was a trial, and people were convicted of her murder. This is a fact and a true story. No one can challenge or question ITV for evidence of her murder’s account credibility.” (emphasis added)

In short, the meaning conveyed by the Documentary and the Drama that the claimant was responsible for the murder of his niece, Banaz Mahmod, along with others, is not disputed or complained of by the claimant. The claimant goes on to say:

“But, ITV is responsible and has duty of honesty and editorial standards, this includes fact checking and verifying the accuracy of statements made in the two programmes, specially those could harm someone[’]s reputation and put their lives and lives of their families in danger.

Therefore it is the ITV’s legal duty to produce credible document[ation] of the statements made in the two programmes about Banaz’s alleged rape, to the court and to the claimant, or put the hands up, take responsibility, accept full failure, come clean and do the right things for the sake of justice and honesty for Banaz too.”

At part 7(B) of the APoC, under the heading “Murder and rape in the eyes of Kurdish people”, the claimant draws the following distinctions between murder and rape, which he says “are not treated the same in the public eye and [in] prison”:

“The majority of Kurds are Muslim faith and are deeply conservative. They are a tight-knit community who respect their traditional values and customs.

Among Kurdish people the crime of rape is absolute taboo and is not tolerated under any circumstances. Anyone who is even suspected of such a crime is s[h]unned by the community and all ties with them cut/[severed].

By contrast, murder, though reprehensible and deplorable is seen as comprehensible, because given the right chain of circumstance, anyone might commit such crime, one way or another. While rape is incomprehensible and unacceptable under any circumstances.”

At paragraph 9(H) of the APoC, the claimant states that:

“The documentary linked [the claimant] directly with what had happened to Banaz, the day she was allegedly raped and murdered.”

At paragraph 9(J) of the APoC, the claimant states that in the Drama the repeated references to the claimant in the context of the Drama’s allegations that Banaz Mahmod was raped as well as murdered create an implication that he was in some sense responsible for her rape. He highlights a statement attributed to “Caroline” in the Drama (the character corresponding to DCI Goode), where during a pre-trial exchange with prosecuting counsel, in response to the latter saying “… there’s no suggestion her father or uncle killed her with their own hands”, Caroline says “She named her Uncle Ari in her list. He directed the conspiracy. He dragged the suitcase.”

The claimant submits that the reference to his dragging the suitcase was intended to mean that he was personally supervising the rape, as well as the murder, of his niece, Banaz, and that he watched as this occurred. In short, the claimant contends that the Documentary and the Drama convey the meaning that he was involved in the alleged rape of Banaz Mahmod.

On behalf of the defendant, Mr Ben Gallop submitted that the meaning of both the Documentary and the Drama, as far as they concern the claimant, is that he was responsible for the murder of his niece, Banaz Mahmod. It goes no further than this. Mr Gallop submitted that this meaning emerges clearly from the account in each programme of Ms Mahmod’s murder and the claimant’s conviction. This meaning requires no further elaboration. The defendant accepts that this meaning is defamatory at common law.

Having with careful attention viewed the Documentary and both episodes of the Drama, having considered the transcripts of each programme, and having considered the submissions of the parties in relation to the Meaning Determination, I am satisfied that neither the Documentary nor the Drama conveys the meaning that the claimant knew about, was responsible for, or was involved in the alleged rape of Banaz Mahmod.

Each programme makes clear that the claimant’s role was to direct that his niece, Banaz, be murdered by others. In short, I accept the defendant’s case as to the natural and ordinary meaning of each programme, namely, that the claimant was responsible for the murder of his niece, Banaz Mahmod.