In the recent judgment handed down this month in the case of Hijazi v Yaxley-Lennon [2021], Mr Justice Nicklin ordered the Defendant to pay damages for libel in the sum of £100,000 to the Claimant for two defamatory videos posted by the Defendant on his Facebook profile that he operated under the name Tommy Robinson. The Defendant was described by the Judge as a “well-known public figure on the political right”.
Hijazi v Yaxley-Lennon [2021]
Background
The Claimant in this case was a child of a family granted refugee status after escaping from Syria. The Claimant was involved in an incident at school with another boy. The Judge described the incident as follows:
“…the event that has led to this libel action was a fight between the Claimant and another boy at the school, Bailey McLaren. At the time, the Claimant was 15 years old, and Bailey was 16. They were both in the same year at the School. The incident was recorded, almost certainly on a mobile phone, by another pupil. The clip lasts for 38 seconds. The video starts with Bailey McLaren walking, smiling, towards the Claimant and calling out to him. The Claimant, who ignores Bailey, can be seen to have his arm in a cast. This injury was caused in an incident on 1 October 2018… Bailey has a bottle of water with him. He catches up to the Claimant, and says “what you saying now, then?”, a phrase that he repeats several times to the Claimant. The Claimant initially does not respond, and only replies “nothing” when the question is repeated by the older boy. Bailey then grabs the Claimant by the throat and forces him to the ground. On the ground, the Claimant lies on his back being held down by the throat by Bailey. Bailey continues to shout at the Claimant and, holding him down, pours water over his face from the bottle he was carrying. Whilst doing so, he shouts at the Claimant, “you bastard… you bastard, I’ll drown you”. After that, he releases the Claimant who gets up, and simply walks away. At no point does the Claimant offer any violence to Bailey or do anything to provoke the incident.”
The recording of the incident subsequently went viral on social media. Whilst there was no evidence that the attack was racially motivated, the newspapers seized upon this incident, reporting it as a racially motivated incident. In response to this media coverage, the Defendant posted two videos. The Judge had previously decided that the meaning to be taken from the videos are set out below:
“The meaning of the First Video was:
“The Claimant had (1) as part of a gang, participated in a violent assault on a young girl which had caused her significant injuries; and (2) threatened to stab another child”…
The meaning of the Second Video was held to be:
“The Claimant had, as part of a gang, participated in a violent assault on a young girl which had caused her serious injuries”.”
The Defendant accepted that, given the serious nature of the accusations made, the test of serious harm required by Section 1 of the Defamation Act 2013 was met. The Defendant’s sole defence in the matter was on the basis that he claimed that the allegations were substantially true based on the following incidents that the Defendant alleges took place:
“i) An incident, between January-February 2017, when it is alleged that the Claimant “made an unprovoked attack upon a fellow female pupil, Charly Matthews. He came behind her and struck her forcefully between the shoulder blades with a weapon in the form of a hockey stick with great force” (“the Hockey Stick Incident”).
ii) On an unidentified occasion, the Claimant is alleged to have acted in concert with three young girls in attacking EYW. Whilst the three girls were beating EYW, the Claimant is alleged to have joined in and bitten EYW on the head (“the Group Attack Incident”).
iii) The Claimant is alleged persistently to have bullied a 12-year-old male child, BWI. The Claimant was 15 years old at the time. As part of this alleged bullying, the Claimant is alleged to have put BWI in an “extreme headlock”. When another child intervened, to protect BWI, the Claimant fell to the floor and fractured his arm. He is alleged to have racially abused BWI’s mother by calling her a “white fat bitch”.
iv) The Claimant is alleged frequently to have been verbally aggressive towards female students and female teachers.
v) On the day of the Playing Field Incident, the Claimant is alleged to have threatened to stab Bailey McLaren.
vi) On a separate unidentified occasion, the Claimant is alleged to have stabbed a fellow pupil with a sharp-pointed object.
vii) The Claimant is alleged to have been caught in possession of a knife and screwdriver whilst he was in school.”
The Judge found that the Defendant had failed to substantiate the truth in the incidents alleged and accordingly found in favour of the Claimant. In setting out his view on damages, the Judge stated:
“The Defendant’s allegations against the Claimant were very serious and were published widely. The Defendant has admitted that their publication has caused serious harm to the Claimant’s reputation. The consequences to the Claimant have been particularly severe. Although it was media attention on the Viral Video that first propelled the Claimant (and Bailey McLaren) into the glare of publicity, overwhelmingly that coverage (rightly) portrayed the Claimant as the victim in the Playing Field Incident. The Defendant’s contribution to this media frenzy was a deliberate effort to portray the Claimant as being, far from an innocent victim, but in fact a violent aggressor. Worse, the language used in the First and Second Videos was calculated to inflame the situation. As was entirely predictable, the Claimant then became the target of abuse which ultimately led to him and his family having to leave their home, and the Claimant to have to abandon his education. The Defendant is responsible for this harm, some of the scars of which, particularly the impact on the Claimant’s education, are likely last for many years, if not a lifetime…
The most significant element of the damages award that I fix will be the need for vindication. This judgment – but more importantly – the award of damages will mark clearly that the Defendant has failed to demonstrate the truth of his allegations. The Defendant took on the burden of proving his allegations to be true. He has failed. In reality, and for the reasons I have explained, his evidence fell woefully short. He has, however, persisted with the serious allegations he originally made, and has even added to them during the proceedings. The Claimant has had to face them in the full glare and publicity of a High Court trial. It is my responsibility to make clear that the Defendant has failed in his defence of truth, to vindicate the Claimant and to award him a sum in damages that represents fair compensation. The sum I award is £100,000.”
How Nelsons can help
Kevin Modiri is a Partner in our expert Dispute Resolution team.
If you require any advice in relation to 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.