High Court Analyzes Social Media Defamation in Sana Hameed v Shanzay Shahbaz Sheikh Case

Citation: [2023] EWHC 2845 (KB)
Judgment on

Introduction

In the defamation case of Sana Hameed v Shanzay Shahbaz Sheikh, the High Court engaged in a nuanced analysis of publications across social media to determine the implications of various statements and whether they tied the claimant to potentially criminal behaviour. Master Davison outlined the principles for determining the meaning of publications, revolved around the concept of a hypothetical reasonable reader. The application of the so-called “Chase levels” and principles from established cases were central to the decision.

Key Facts

The defendant, a social media influencer, was implicated in publishing a defamatory WhatsApp message that included a photograph of the claimant next to an image of a Muppet. The publication asserted that the claimant was behind a gossip Instagram page, thus insinuating her involvement in reprehensible behaviour. The message was accompanied by additional documents, namely an “Attendance Order” and a “Court Order,” suggesting a formal investigation by the Pakistani authorities. The claimant alleged four more Instagram stories to be defamatory in this context.

In determining the meaning of the publications, the court applied the following legal principles:

  1. Natural and Ordinary Meaning: According to Nicklin J’s summary in Koutsogiannis v The Random House Group Limited [2019], the court must find the single natural and ordinary meaning of the words as would be understood by the hypothetical reasonable reader.

  2. Chase levels: This nomenclature arises from the case of Chase v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2002] which differentiates between three distinct levels of defamatory meaning: that the claimant has committed the impugned behaviour, there are reasonable grounds to suspect they have, or there are grounds to investigate whether they have.

  3. Social Media Publications: The court also considered principles established in Stocker v Stocker [2019] and Monroe v Hopkins [2017], noting the need to account for the conversational and immediate nature of social media.

  4. Absolute Privilege: The concept of absolute privilege articulated in Westcott v Westcott [2008] clarifies that statements made during the course of judicial proceedings are immune from suit. The court examined whether Westcott applied in the context where judicial documents were presented in a different manner and for different purposes.

  5. Identification of Claimant: Key to the defamation claim was whether the publications were understood to refer to the claimant. The court acknowledged that evidence is admissible on this issue, often requiring witness testimony.

Outcomes

The court divided its analysis into sections:

  • For the WhatsApp message alone, the court found that it constitutes defamatory statements at common law by stating factual assertions and expressing derogatory opinions about the claimant.

  • The WhatsApp message taken with the Attendance Order and Court Order suggested there were reasonable grounds to suspect the claimant had committed a criminal offence.

  • The second, third, and fifth publications, depending on whether they were understood to refer to the claimant, may be defamatory, illustrating negative character aspects or hinting at illegal behavior.

  • The fourth publication was deemed to have a more oblique meaning but potentially defamatory if taken to refer to the claimant’s legal accountability.

The court thus found these publications to be potentially defamatory and laid a path for further investigation into whether these referred to the claimant specifically.

Conclusion

In Sana Hameed v Shanzay Shahbaz Sheikh [2023] EWHC 2845 (KB), Master Davison methodically applied established defamation principles to digital communications, a still-evolving area of law. The application of the “Chase levels” of meaning and natural and ordinary meaning principles indicate the court’s attentiveness to the medium’s specificity, ensuring that the nuances of social media defamation are appropriately appreciated. This ruling underscores the complexity of issues surrounding identification and reference in defamation suits within social media’s ephemeral yet pervasive nature.