Chowdhury Mueen-Uddin v Secretary of State for the Home Department

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
JudgeMrs Justice Tipples DBE
Judgment Date16 February 2021
Neutral Citation[2021] EWHC 269 (QB)
CourtQueen's Bench Division
Docket NumberCase No: QB-2020-002120
Date16 February 2021

[2021] EWHC 269 (QB)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION

MEDIA AND COMMUNICATIONS LIST

Royal Courts of Justice

Strand, London, WC2A 2LL

Before:

THE HONOURABLE Mrs Justice Tipples

Case No: QB-2020-002120

Between:
Chowdhury Mueen-Uddin
Claimant
and
Secretary of State for the Home Department
Defendant

Mr Jacob Dean (instructed by Carter-Ruck Solicitors) for the Claimant

Mr Ben Silverstone (instructed by Government Legal Department) for the Defendant

Hearing date: 10 th December 2020

Approved Judgment

Mrs Justice Tipples DBE The Honourable

Introduction

1

This is a libel action, coupled with a data protection claim.

2

The claims arise out of the report entitled “Challenging Hateful Extremism” (“ the Report”) which was published in hard copy and online on or about 7 October 2019 by the Commission for Countering Extremism (“ the Commission”). In this judgment the two forms in which the Report was published are referred to as “ the Hard Copy Report” and “ the Online Report”. The Report is 143 pages long.

3

The claim form was issued on 19 June 2020.

4

The Claimant is described in the Particulars of Claim as a British citizen, originally from Bangladesh (at that time East Pakistan), who is a senior and prominent member of the Muslim community in the UK and who helped to set up the Muslim Council of Britain and served as the vice chairman of the East London Mosque.

5

The Commission is, according to the Particulars of Claim, a non-statutory expert committee of the Home Office, formed to study, report and advise government on the threat of extremist behaviour. The Claimant maintains that the Defendant is vicariously liable for the actions and defaults of the employees and officers of the Commission, and is the data controller of personal data processed by the Commission.

6

The Claimant complains about a passage contained on page 54 of the Report, together with the contents of footnote 158. These are pleaded at paragraph 5 of the Particulars of Claim:

“Ideological and Sectarian Violence

….

We also heard about violence towards secular people from those of a similar faith background. Muslim bloggers described being physically attacked during a protest in East London [footnote 157]. The protest was to show support for the conviction of a senior Jamaat-e-Islami leader for war crimes committed during the 1971 War of Independence [footnote 158]. Some of those we spoke to are in hiding.

Footnote 158

Links between those responsible for the violence in 1971 and JI in the UK including community leadership in East London are well established. Chowdhury Mueen Uddin, former vice chair of the East London Mosque and who helped found the Muslim Council of Great Britain was found guilty of crimes against humanity following a trial in absentia: See Channel 4. 2013. ‘British Muslim leader sentenced to death for war crimes’ 3 November 2013, (accessed: 4 September 2019) https//www.channel4.com/Chowdhury-mueen-uddin-war-crimes-london-muslim.’”

7

The Claimant's case is that, in their natural and ordinary meaning, the words complained of mean and were understood to mean that the Claimant was responsible for serious criminal violence, including the commission of war crimes and crimes against humanity, during a war of independence in South Asia in 1971. He maintains that that meaning is defamatory at common law, and seriously so.

8

Further, the Claimant maintains that, under the General Data Protection Regulation (“ GDPR”), the Report contains the following items of the Claimant's personal data, namely:

a. the Claimant was found guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity following a trial in absentia;

b. the Claimant committed war crimes and crimes against humanity during a War of Independence in 1971;

c. the Claimant was responsible for serious criminal violence during a War of Independence in 1971;

d. the Claimant is a senior leader of the group known as Jamaat-e-Islami; and

e. the Claimant provides a link between those responsible for serious criminal violence during a War of Independence in 1971 and the leadership of Jamaat-e-Islami in the UK.

9

The Defendant's position was set out in a letter from the Government Legal Department (“ the GLD”) to the Claimant's solicitors dated 10 September 2020 which stated that the words complained of, in their proper context, bear the following ordinary and natural meaning:

“The Claimant was found guilty by a Bangladeshi War Crimes tribunal, following a trial in absentia, of crimes against humanity in 1971 but the Claimant strongly denies responsibility for such crimes and there are serious doubts about the fairness of the trial, the legitimacy of the Tribunal and the safety of the conviction, as a result of numerous allegations of witness abduction, witness coercion and falsification of evidence in relation to the trial and accusations that it amounted to a show trial.”

10

The Defendant maintains that this meaning is not defamatory at common law. Further, for the purposes of the claim under the GDPR, the Defendant's position is that the Report conveys the information set out above, as well as the following:

“The Claimant was a member of Jamaat-e-Islami.”

“There are links between those held responsible for the violence in 1971 and Jamaat-e-Islami in the UK in the claimant was found guilty, following a trial in absentia, of crimes against humanity during the Bangladeshi War of Independence in 1971, although the Claimant strongly denies responsibility for such crimes and there are serious doubts about the fairness of the trial, the legitimacy of the Tribunal and the safety of the conviction, as a result of numerous allegations of witness abduction, witness coercion and falsification of evidence in relation to the trial and accusations that it amounted to a show trial.”

11

By a consent order made on 30 September 2020 it was ordered that there be a preliminary trial of the issues of meaning and whether the Report conveys the information alleged for the purposes of the data protection. The parties also agreed that the preliminary trial should determine whether that meaning, as found by the Court, is defamatory of the Claimant at common law (although, by oversight, this issue was not specifically identified in the consent order).

12

The Defendant has not served a Defence and, by agreement between the parties, the time for doing so has been extended until 28 days after the determination of the trial of the preliminary issues.

13

On 4 December 2020 the GLD informed the Claimant's solicitors that the Defendant had revised her position in relation to the Hard Copy Report. The GLD's letter explained that:

“[The Defendant's] revised position is that the words complained of in the Hard Copy Report, in their proper context, bear the following natural and ordinary meaning: “the Claimant has committed crimes against humanity.” It is accepted that that meaning is defamatory at common law.

For the purposes of the claim under the [GDPR], our client's position is that the Hard Copy Report conveys the following information:

“The Claimant was a member of Jamaat-e-Islami.”

“The Claimant has committed crimes against humanity.”

“The Claimant was found guilty of crimes against humanity following a trial in absentia.”

“The Claimant provides a link between those responsible for the violence in 1971 and Jamaat-e-Islami in the UK.”

For the avoidance of doubt, our client maintains the position set out in our letter of 10 September 2020 in respect of the [Online Report].”

14

The Claimant maintains that words the complained of mean the same in the Hard Copy Report and in the Online Report.

15

The Defendant maintains that the words have a different meaning in the Online Report (as set out at paragraph 10 above), and are not defamatory at common law. This is because the ordinary reader would read and view the Channel 4 website article to which there was a hyperlink provided in the Online Report (“ the Webpage”), together with the video embedded within that Webpage (“ the Video”). I was provided with an electronic file containing the video, which I have watched. The parties also provided me with an agreed transcript of the Video, which set out in the right-hand column in the images which can be seen on screen when the words in the left-hand column can be seen.

16

The issues between the parties have therefore narrowed, and the Court is invited to determine the following issues, namely:

a. What is the natural and ordinary meaning of the Hard Copy Report?

b. What is the natural and ordinary meaning of the Online Report?

c. Is the meaning determined pursuant to (b) above defamatory of the Claimant at common law?

d. What information relating to the Claimant is conveyed by the Hard Copy Report?

e. What information relating to the Claimant is conveyed by the Online Report?

17

In order to determine these issues, I should record that, in order to capture my initial reaction as a reader, I first read the Report in full in order to read the words complained of, in context, and I did so without reference to the parties' contentions or submissions. I adopted the same approach to the Webpage and the Video. That is, of course, the accepted general practice in relation to trials of this nature: see, for example, Tinkler v Ferguson [2019] EWCA Civ 819 at paras [9] and [37].

18

Before turning to the relevant background, and the parties' submissions, I should summarise the relevant legal principles.

Relevant legal principles

19

Both Counsel summarised the relevant law in their helpful skeleton arguments. There was no real dispute between them and they made the following points.

20

...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases
  • Chowdhury Mueen-Uddin v Secretary of State for the Home Department
    • United Kingdom
    • Queen's Bench Division
    • 15 November 2021
    ...Claimant at common law. 24 The preliminary issue trial was conducted by Tipples J. who gave her judgment on 16 th February 2021 – see [2021] EWHC 269 (QB). 25 She found that there was no difference between the meaning of the hard copy of the Report and the (original) on-line 26 Tipples J. ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT