Andrew Bridgen v Matt Hancock
[2024] EWHC 1603 (KB)
Miqdaad Versi v Mohamed Husain (aka Ed Husain)
3 March 2023
[2023] EWHC 482 (KB)
High Court
Someone tweeted mean things about a Muslim activist, calling him an extremist. A judge decided the tweet was defamatory, meaning it unfairly damaged his reputation, even though some parts were opinions. The judge explained that while free speech is important, there are limits to what you can say without harming someone's reputation.
Key Facts
- •Miqdaad Versi (Claimant), a media monitor and anti-Islamophobia campaigner, sued Mohamed Husain (Defendant), an author and advisor on Islamist extremism, for libel.
- •The libel stemmed from a tweet by the Defendant republishing the Claimant's tweet with a critical comment.
- •The tweet called the Claimant a 'pro-Hamas pro-Iran pro-gender discrimination pro-blasphemy laws pro-sectarian anti-Western “Representative” of an Islamist outfit.'
- •The court considered preliminary issues: natural and ordinary meaning of the tweet, whether it was fact or opinion, and whether it was defamatory.
- •The parties disagreed on the scope of context to consider when determining meaning, including whether linked tweets should be considered.
- •The court considered the context of the tweet within a Twitter thread, and the potential impact of hyperlinks on the reader's interpretation.
Legal Principles
Determining the natural and ordinary meaning of a publication involves considering common knowledge, matters within the publication, and directly available context.
Riley v Murray [2020] EWHC 977 (QB)
In social media, context is crucial, and the hypothetical reader is someone who would react to the post in the specific circumstances.
Stocker v Stocker [2019] UKSC 17
Political speech doesn't require special interpretation rules but needs to avoid over-analysis.
Thompson v James [2014] EWCA Civ 600, Waterson v Lloyd [2013] EWCA Civ 136
A meaning is defamatory if it tends to lower the claimant's estimation in the eyes of right-thinking people and has a substantially adverse effect on how they treat the claimant.
Millett v Corbyn [2021] EWCA Civ 567
Outcomes
The natural and ordinary meaning of the tweet was: the claimant expressed views supportive of Iran, gender discrimination, blasphemy laws, sectarianism, and was anti-Western; supported Hamas; and held extremist, Islamist views so objectionable as to disqualify him from public debate.
The court considered the tweet's cumulative effect, finding it implied the claimant held extremist views. The court rejected both the claimant's overly strained and the defendant's overly literal interpretations.
The tweet contained statements of fact (the claimant's expressed views) and an opinion (that those views were extremist).
The court considered the context within the political debate, and distinguished factual assertions from the opinion on their extremism.
The tweet's meaning was defamatory.
Attributing the views to the claimant would lower his standing among right-thinking people and have a substantially adverse effect on how people treat him. The court considered the importance of freedom of speech but also the impact of defamatory statements.