KB-2023-003636 - [2025] EWHC 2043 (KB)

I accept Mr Henderson’s submission that, in the abstract, the natural probability is that the imputation conveyed by the article, published as it was in a well-known, reputable, widely read publication, is seriously damaging to reputation such that it is likely that it would cause serious reputational harm. That is the more so in the light of the claimant’s profile as an academic and a public speaker and commentator on politics, religion and society within the British Asian community. It is, however, necessary for the claimant to prove that the article has in fact caused serious reputational harm or that it is likely to do so in the future.

The claimant has not discharged that burden.

First, the evidence shows that he has many more social media followers than the Spectator has subscribers, and his material is viewed many more times than the Spectator article was read. That discrepancy is likely to be even more marked in the case of those who are acquainted with the claimant. The material that is published by the claimant, including in particular the video of his speech in Leicester, is at least as reputationally damaging to him as the article. The video shows him, far more vividly than is conveyed by the words of the article, directly whipping up a large group of masked men and ridiculing a central tenet of Hinduism, in the febrile context of ongoing disturbances between large groups of young men. Against that background, it cannot be inferred that the article caused, or would be likely to cause, additional serious reputational harm.

Second, this is not a case where it is necessary to work on the basis that it is inherently difficult to provide evidence of reputational damage. The claimant is very well known on social media, and he has a huge number of followers. If the article did cause him serious reputational harm it is likely that would be reflected in a significant reduction in the number of his followers and/or a significant reduction in his income from his social media publications. The claimant advanced such a case, but it was unsupported by reliable evidence, and it is a confected case.

Third, no reliance can be placed on the claimant’s evidence. Accordingly, to the extent that he gives evidence that his reputation has been damaged, unsupported by other credible material, that takes his case no further.

Fourth, there is some evidence that the claimant positively revelled in any form of publicity. He said in evidence that (up to a point) controversy increased the number of people who viewed his material and hence the value that could be realised from that content. When he was described as an “instigator in chief”, he had t-shirts printed, emblazoned with “instigator in chief”, which he sold via an Amazon outlet.

Fifth, there is no other credible evidence of damage to the claimant’s reputation occasioned by the article.

Sixth, it is now almost three years since the article was published. In the absence of any credible evidence that the claimant has sustained serious reputational harm in that period, it is not likely that the article will, in the future, cause such harm.

Seventh, the claimant relies on what he says is a death-threat. That is contained in an Instagram message which is undated. Nothing in the Instagram message references the article. It may have been written in response to the claimant’s video of his speech, or something else. There is no evidence that the article caused the death-threat to be made.

It follows that the claim in defamation must be dismissed.