Miqdaad Versi v Mohamed Husain (aka Ed Husain)
[2023] EWHC 482 (KB)
Tahir Alam v Guardian News and Media Limited
17 November 2023
[2023] EWHC 2847 (KB)
High Court
A newspaper article said bad things about a school's leader, Tahir Alam. A judge decided the article meant Alam let bad things happen at his schools. The judge thought the article's claims were based on facts from official reports, not just opinions. The judge decided the article was defamatory.
Key Facts
- •Tahir Alam (Claimant) brought defamation proceedings against Guardian News and Media Limited (Defendant) concerning an article published in the Observer.
- •The article criticized a podcast, 'The Trojan Horse Affair', for exonerating Alam, and alleged shortcomings in the schools Alam's trust ran.
- •The preliminary issue trial focused on the meaning of the article, whether it was fact or opinion, and whether it was defamatory.
Legal Principles
Determining the meaning of a defamatory statement requires a reasonable reader test, considering the publication as a whole and avoiding strained interpretations.
Koutsogiannis v Random House Group Ltd [2020] 4 WLR 25, Millett v Corbyn [2021] EMLR 19
The distinction between fact and opinion in defamation cases depends on how the statement would strike the ordinary reasonable reader, considering the context.
Millett v Corbyn [2021] EWCA Civ 567, Koutsogiannis v Random House Group Ltd [2020] 4 WLR 25
Outcomes
The court determined the meaning of the article to be that Alam, as chair of a school trust, allowed an ultra-conservative Islamic viewpoint to influence education and enabled a culture of poor governance, extremist views, homophobia, misogyny, and intolerance.
The court analyzed the article as a whole, considering the context and avoiding strained interpretations. It found the article presented factual allegations based on multiple official reports and inquiries, not merely opinions.
The court held that the article's statements were primarily statements of fact, not opinion.
The court considered the context, the specific wording used, and the multiple official sources cited. It found the examples given left no room for subjective interpretations.
The court found the article to be defamatory of Alam.
The defendant conceded this point, acknowledging that the meaning established by the court was defamatory.