Sayed Zulfikar Abbas Bukhari v Syed Tauqeer Bukhari
[2023] EWHC 427 (KB)
Daniel Miller & Anor v Luke Turner
8 November 2023
[2023] EWHC 2799 (KB)
High Court
Two artists sued another for mean tweets and online bullying. The judge said the tweets, while nasty, weren't bad enough to be illegal libel or harassment. The judge emphasized that even unpleasant online arguments are usually protected by free speech.
Key Facts
- •Daniel Miller and Nina Power (Claimants) sued Luke Turner (Defendant) for libel over 16 tweets and a webpage.
- •Turner counterclaimed for harassment based on online conduct by Miller and Power.
- •The case involved a highly polarized debate within the contemporary art world, specifically concerning the 'New Right' milieu.
- •The 'New Right' milieu encompasses diverse ideas, attracting both strong support and fierce opposition, often leading to online and real-world conflict.
- •The dispute arose from interactions on Twitter, characterized by strong opinions and accusations of antisemitism and threats of violence.
- •Miller and Power deleted much of their Twitter history, making the context of the online interactions incomplete.
- •The case included allegations of antisemitism, threats of violence, and the publication of an article advocating euthanasia.
- •The Claimants did not sue on imputations that they were 'fascist' or 'neo-Nazi', despite those labels being significant in the context of the dispute.
Legal Principles
A statement is not defamatory unless its publication has caused or is likely to cause serious harm to the claimant's reputation.
Defamation Act 2013, section 1
In defamation cases, courts must have particular regard to the importance of freedom of expression.
Human Rights Act 1998, section 12
Harassment is a course of conduct which amounts to harassment of another, and which the perpetrator knows or ought to know amounts to harassment of the other.
Protection from Harassment Act 1997, section 1(1)
In harassment cases involving speech, there's a tension between Article 10 ECHR (freedom of expression) and the gravity of the misconduct.
Majrowski v Guy's & St Thomas' NHS Trust [2007] 1 AC 224
The 'serious harm' test in defamation requires establishing a causal link between the publication and reputational harm.
Lachaux v Independent Print Ltd [2020] AC 612
Outcomes
Claimants' libel claim dismissed.
The Claimants failed to demonstrate that the Defendant's publications caused or were likely to cause serious harm to their reputations. Insufficient evidence linked the publications to any specific reputational damage, and other factors were more likely causes.
Defendant's harassment counterclaim dismissed.
While the Defendant's online behaviour was regrettable and may have caused distress, it did not meet the threshold for quasi-criminal gravity required under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. The conduct, while aggressive, did not reach the level of sustained, oppressive, and unacceptable behaviour sufficient for a successful harassment claim.