In defamation cases, whilst a person is presumed to be of good character, the Courts will scrutinise a witness’s credibility closely. Given that most of these cases revolve around how credible the Claimant is (e.g., for example, in evidence damage to character or whether serious harm has been incurred), whether a case is won or lost can be determined by the Courts’ view on such credibility. A good example of this is in this recent case.
Background
The Claimant (also widely known online by a different transliteration) sued the Defendants over an article that described him as a “street agitator” who whipped up followers, including by ridiculing Hindus during the 2022 Leicester unrest; he also brought a data protection claim. The Defendants accepted he used the term “Hindutva” rather than “Hindus”, but argued the article’s core imputation was substantially true and, in any event, that the publication had not caused serious harm to his reputation.
The single meaning and reference
The Judge set the article’s single meaning in terms that placed the Leicester speech within a broader narrative of street agitation and community tensions. In short, the article meant:
“The claimant is a street agitator who has whipped up a mob on London’s streets, addressed an anti-Israel protest in inflammatory terms, and exacerbated frayed tensions (which had already spilled over into public disorder) between Muslim and Hindu communities in Leicester by whipping up his Muslim 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.”
The Judge held this to be a statement of fact that is defamatory at common law.
On reference, the article clearly identified the Claimant notwithstanding a different transliteration; anyone acquainted with him would recognise the reference.
Serious harm: a Claimant’s own megaphone can undercut the case
Applying Lachaux, the Court looked for actual or likely serious reputational harm. Here, the evidence fell well short:
- The Claimant’s social-media reach dwarfed the Defendants’ subscriber base; his own posted video of the Leicester speech was at least as damaging to reputation as the article itself, undermining any inference that the article caused additional serious harm;
- If serious harm had occurred, one would expect to see a marked drop in follower numbers or monetised income; the Claimant advanced such a case, but it was “unsupported by reliable evidence”;
- The Judge found no reliance could be placed on the Claimant’s evidence about damage; there was even evidence he revelled in publicity (e.g. selling “instigator in chief” T-shirts).
- With nearly three years having elapsed since publication and still no credible harm shown, the article was not likely to cause serious harm in the future. A purported death threat was undated and not tied to the article.
Result: the defamation claim failed for want of serious harm.
Substantial truth: “Hindutva” vs “Hindus” didn’t save the claim
Although it wasn’t necessary after the serious-harm finding, the Judge addressed the truth. The Court took an objective view of what the Claimant did and said, rather than parsing a single hypothetical meaning of his speech.
Key points:
- Descriptions of the Claimant as a street agitator who had whipped up a mob and addressed an anti-Israel protest in inflammatory terms were accurate on the evidence;
- In the Leicester speech, the Court rejected the asserted category of “non-Hindu Hindutva” as an “unreal construct”. Those present (including the Claimant) would have understood the opposing group to be largely Hindu men; his ridicule targeted them via a central aspect of Hinduism—reincarnation—after first asserting the superiority of Islam. This inflamed tensions.
- Even considering subjective intent, the Judge found the truth defence would still be established; “innocent” explanations did not withstand scrutiny.
Bottom line: The Defendants proved substantial truth of the defamatory imputation; the libel claim would have been dismissed on that basis anyway.
Data protection claim: no material inaccuracy, no claim
Once a substantial truth is established, a DPA 2018 inaccuracy theory collapses. The Court therefore dismissed the data protection claim.
Credibility and proof: a harsh assessment
This is also a case about evidence and credibility. The Judge found the Claimant “lied on significant issues”, rendering his evidence “worthless”. That included findings about Golders Green, the anti-Israel rally, the scope of “Hindutva”, his choice of language, and alleged financial losses.
The purported sponsorship/funding withdrawals were criticised as contrived (odd formality, convenient detail, and suspicious timing just before the letter of claim). Supporting disclosure was missing; key witnesses either did not attend or were undermined in cross-examination (including a conviction for dishonesty), further eroding the damages case.
Comment
This case is a robust application of Lachaux on serious harm and a reminder that substantial truth is about real-world conduct and impact, not post-hoc reframing. For publishers, it shows that careful reliance on contemporaneous video/material and a coherent narrative can carry the day. For Claimants—especially high-profile online figures—it underlines that the louder your own megaphone, the harder it may be to prove that someone else’s article caused you serious reputational harm.
How can we help?
Kevin Modiri is a Partner in our expert Dispute Resolution team, specialising in civil disputes, insolvency, inheritance disputes, data breach claims and defamation claims.
If you have any questions concerning the subjects discussed in this article, please do not hesitate to contact Kevin or another member of the team in Derby, Leicester, or Nottingham on 0800 024 1976 or via our online enquiry form.
Contact us