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

The claimant’s other witnesses were Mohammed Kolia, Ismail Shafi and Shabir Hafegee.

Mr Kolia is director of the United Kingdom Indian Muslim Council, which strives for the empowerment of Indian Muslims residing in the United Kingdom, and also in India. Mr Kolia provides evidence of a survey he conducted about the unrest in Leicester in 2022. His evidence shows that some people believed that some of the unrest was inspired or influenced by the Hindutva. That is hardly surprising in the light of what the claimant and CVB and others were saying. I do not, however, consider that Mr Kolia’s evidence assists on any of the key issues in the case. For the reasons I have already given, it is not necessary to make findings about the causes of the unrest. Anyway, Mr Kolia’s survey, which was not conducted on any scientific basis, is not a safe platform on which to make such findings.

Mr Shafi is a civil servant who has lived in Leicester since childhood. He gives evidence as to his opinion of the underlying causes of the disturbances in Leicester in 2022. He says that there had been an increase in migrants from the Daman and Dui, Gujarat region of India, and that led to an increase of extremist ideologies such as the Hindutva. He says that during the disturbances on 17 September 2022 there were around 200 – 300 men who chanted “Jai Shree Ram” and that this chant is associated with Hindutva extremists in India. He said that these were Hindu men; he did not appear to recognise the claimant’s concept of “non-Hindu Hindutva”. Mr Shafi did not see the claimant’s speech but says that in his experience this would have been understood as a reference to the Hindutva extremists who had behaved as he described and that the community in Leicester “would not have understood this to be a general reference to our Hindu colleagues, friends and neighbours.”

I do not doubt Mr Shafi’s genuineness as a witness, but his evidence is not capable of bearing significant weight. He purports to provide an opinion as to the view that would have been taken of the claimant’s speech by others. The claimant, who gave the speech, was able to give his own direct evidence on this issue. The speech was recorded, and the court can form its own view. It is necessary to make an objective assessment of what the claimant did and said, based on the direct evidence of what he did and said. The testimony of one witness who was not there as to what he thinks others would have understood the claimant to have meant is of little real value.

Mr Hafegee provided a statement that was similar in content to that provided by Mr Shafi. He was summonsed to give evidence on the first day of the trial. He failed to attend. The following day, the claimant served a hearsay notice in respect of his evidence. It was said that he could not attend court due to his physical health. No medical evidence was provided. I do not consider that any weight can properly be placed on his evidence.

I was unable to detect any significant issue of law between the parties. The general principles that apply to this case are clear and are not in dispute.