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

Mark Henderson, for the claimant, submits that both parties are responsible for all publications of the article, which bears the following meaning:

“The Claimant incited religious/racial hatred against the Hindu community, stirring up a Muslim mob in a UK city to violently target Hindus by attacking, disparaging, and dehumanising Hindus qua Hindus, including by ridiculing Hindus for their belief in reincarnation and describing them as pathetic, weak and cowardly in comparison to whom he would rather be an animal.”

He says that the evidence shows that the publication has caused serious harm to the claimant’s reputation, and that the defendants have not proved that it is substantially true. He argues that it is obviously untrue, as can be seen by a comparison of the article with the words spoken by the claimant which referred to the Hindutva and made no reference to Hindus. It follows that the article is inaccurate, so if the claimant fails in his libel claim on the basis of reference or serious harm, he must nonetheless succeed in his data protection claim.

Greg Callus, for the first defendant, and William Bennett KC, for the second defendant, submit that the article bears the following meaning:

“Mohammed Hijab is a street agitator who last year whipped up a mob with inflammatory language at an anti-Israel protest and then cropped up during recent disturbances between Hindus and Muslims in Leicester to whip up his followers including by ridiculing Hindus for their belief in re-incarnation and describing Hindus as pathetic, weak and cowardly in comparison to whom he would rather be an animal.”

They do not accept that the article sufficiently identifies the claimant, pointing to the different spelling of the name and the absence of a pleaded case on a reference innuendo. They say that the claimant’s evidence in respect of harm is not credible and should be rejected, so the claim in libel must fail. The second defendant (but not the first defendant) accepts that there was a mistake in the article insofar as it attributes to the claimant a reference to “Hindus” whereas he actually said “the Hindutva”. Irrespective of that possible mistake, both defendants say that the defamatory imputation conveyed by the article is, on the evidence, substantially true. Accordingly, they say that both the libel and data protection claims must be dismissed. The first defendant also says that the claim falls to be struck out for want of proper disclosure.