Naik (Zakir) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department and Another

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
JudgeMr Justice Cranston
Judgment Date05 November 2010
Neutral Citation[2010] EWHC 2825 (Admin)
Date05 November 2010
CourtQueen's Bench Division (Administrative Court)
Docket NumberCase No: CO/8625/2010

[2010] EWHC 2825 (Admin)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICEf

QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION

ADMINISTRATIVE COURT

Before: Mr Justice Cranston

Case No: CO/8625/2010

Between
Dr Zakir Naik
Claimant
and
(1) the Secretary of State for the Home Department
Defendants
(2) Entry Clearance Officer, Mumbai, India

Raza Husain QC, Matthew Ryder QC and Duran Seddon (instructed by ITN Solicitors) for the Claimant

James Eadie QC and Jeremy Johnson (instructed by Treasury Solicitors) for the Defendants

Hearing dates: 20, 21 October 2010

Mr Justice Cranston

Mr Justice Cranston:

INTRODUCTION

1

Dr Naik, the claimant, is a leading Muslim writer and public speaker. He has made a number of statements which the Secretary of State regards as being on their face supportive of Osama Bin Laden, anti-Jewish and otherwise unacceptable. She is also concerned about reports suggesting that Dr Naik's broadcasts may have influenced those who have instigated terrorist attacks. On 16 June 2010 she decided to exclude him from the United Kingdom. The decision was made under the Secretary of State's personal power to exclude non-nationals from this country on the grounds that it is conducive to the public good and the Home Office's published policy on “unacceptable behaviours”. In this judicial review Dr Naik challenges the Secretary of State's decision. Dr Naik also challenges the consequent decision on 17 June 2010 to revoke his entry clearance visa; the confirmation on 25 June of the exclusion decision; and the final decision by the Secretary of State dated 9 August 2010, made following a reconsideration of his representations, to confirm Dr Naik's exclusion from the United Kingdom. The four broad grounds of challenge are breach of legitimate expectation, procedural unfairness, violation of the right to freedom of expression pursuant to article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (“ECHR” or “the Convention”); and the failure to give sufficient reasons, to take account of all relevant circumstances and to act rationally.

BACKGROUND

The claimant and his interests

2

Dr Zakir Naik is a national of India, born in 1965. He graduated in medicine from the University of Mumbai. Since then he has become a figure of significant influence in the Muslim world, whose public appearances frequently attract crowds of many thousands. Over the past 13 years, Dr Naik has delivered more than 1,300 public addresses around the world. A particular feature of them is the associated question and answer sessions. Over 100 of his talks, dialogues, debates and symposia are available on recordings. Since 2007, he has organised an annual international peace conference in Mumbai, which now attracts over one million people. Dr Naik is the author of books on Islam and comparative religion. He has participated in symposia with leading figures of other faiths. In a list of the top 10 spiritual gurus of India, published in the Indian Express in 2010, Dr Naik was listed first. In an article published in the Sunday Express on 22 February 2010, Dr Naik was ranked 89 in a list of the 100 most powerful Indians of 2010. In her letter to MPs on 17 June 2010 the Minister of State for Security, Rt Hon Baroness Neville-Jones, described Dr Naik as a leading Muslim writer and public speaker.

3

In 1991 Dr Naik established the Islamic Research Foundation, a non-profit making organization based in Mumbai. Dr Naik is president of the foundation. The foundation promotes Da'wah, the proper presentation, understanding and appreciation of Islam. Dr Naik is also chairman of the Islamic Research Foundation International (“IRFI”), a charity based in the United Kingdom and regulated by the Charity Commission. Dr Naik is the chairman and director of Harmony Media, a not for profit media production company in India, constituted under Indian Law. He is also the director and chairman of Global Broadcasting Corporation, a not for profit broadcast company constituted in Dubai. Universal Broadcasting Corporation Ltd (“UBCL”) is a non profit making company in the United Kingdom, limited by guarantee. Dr Naik is a director and chairman. UBCI wholly owns Lords Production Inc Ltd, a non profit making company in the United Kingdom, which holds the broadcast licence for Peace TV. The broadcasts on this channel are public talks to advance the faith and practice of Islam. The Peace TV channel is transmitted using the BSkyB platform across the United Kingdom and Europe and also provides feeds for the United States. Peace TV has a studio presence in the United Kingdom and India and is regulated by OFCOM in the United Kingdom. IRFI provides some funding for Peace TV.

4

In the course of his role as a public speaker on Islam Dr Naik made a number of public pronouncements in the decade following 1997, which are relevant to the decisions challenged in these proceedings. As identified by the Secretary of State these are as follows:

“Statement 1: As far as a terrorist is concerned, I tell the Muslims that every Muslim should be a terrorist… What is the meaning of the word terrorist? Terrorist by definition means a person who terrorises. When a robber sees a policeman he's terrified. So for a robber, a policeman is a terrorist. So in this context, every Muslim should be a terrorist to the robber… Every Muslim should be a terrorist to each and every anti-social element. I'm aware that terrorist more commonly is used for a person who terrorises an innocent person. In this context, no Muslim should even terrorise a single innocent human being. The Muslims should selectively terrorise the anti-social element. And many times, two different labels are given to the same activity of the same individual… Before any person gives any label to any individual for any of his actions, we have to first analyse, for what reason is he doing that?

Statement 2: Beware of Muslims saying Osama Bin Laden is right or wrong. I reject them… we don't know. But if you ask my view, if given the truth, if he is fighting the enemies of Islam, I am for him. I don't know what he's doing. I'm not in touch with him. I don't know him personally. I read the newspaper. If he is terrorising the terrorists, if he is terrorising America the terrorist, the biggest terrorist, every Muslim should be a terrorist. The thing is, if he's terrorising a terrorist, he's following Islam.

Statement 3: How can you ever justify killing innocent people? But in the same breath as condemning those responsible we must also condemn those responsible for the deaths of thousands of innocent people in Iraq, Afghanistan and Lebanon.

Statement 4: If you are going to ask and say that based on the news that I get from the media, whether it be BBC, CNN, etc, then if I agree with that news I have no option but to label [Osama bin Laden] a terrorist, but the glorious Quran says… whenever you get information about something, check it out before you pass it to the second person or the third person. As far as Osama bin Laden is concerned… I cannot base my answer just on the news reports, unless the news reports are verified. But one thing I can say for sure that he was always called as a prime suspect on CNN… prime suspect number one – no proof. Based on the reports of CNN and BBC, I cannot say that he is a terrorist at all. I am neither saying he is good, and neither saying he is bad.

Statement 5: Strongest in enmity towards the Muslims are the Jews and the pagans… It [The Quran] does not say that the Muslims should fight with the Jews… the Jews, by nature as a whole, will be against Muslims… there are many Jews who are good to Muslims, but as a whole… The Quran tells us, as a whole, they will be our staunchest enemy.

Statement 6: It is a blatant secret that this attack on the twin towers was done by George Bush himself.

Statement 7: Today, America is controlled by the Jews, whether it be the banks, whether it be the money, whether it be the power. Nobody can become a president of the USA without walking the Star of David.

Statement 8: American citizens themselves have a hundred other hypotheses for who is the person who was responsible for September 11 th. You go on to the internet… American journalists, American historians… this thing could not have been done by bin Laden… I'm not saying what they're saying is wrong, or what they're saying is right, I don't know. I'm just giving you information that you might not be aware… Some of the people even say that George Bush himself did it.

Statement 9: The pig is the most shameless animal on the face of the earth. It is the only animal that invites its friends to have sex with its mate. In America, most people consume pork. Many times after dance parties, they have swapping of wives; many say, 'you sleep with my wife and I will sleep with your wife.' If you eat pigs, then you behave like pigs.

Statement 10: If a Muslim becomes a non-Muslim and propagates his/her new religion then, it is as good as treason. There is a 'death penalty' in Islam for such a person. Punishment is death. In many countries the punishment for treason is also death. If an army general discloses his army's secrets to another country then there is a 'death penalty' or life imprisonment for such a person according to the laws of most of the countries. Similarly if a Muslim becomes non-Muslim and propagates his/her new religion then there is a 'death penalty' for such a person in Islam.

Statement 11: If a person does not want peace to prevail what can we do?… We have to be careful of the Jews. Not ever fight them, unless they come and fight you. That's a different thing. Imagine what's happening in Palestine, what's happening in other...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • The Queen (Lord Carlile of Berriew & others) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
    • United Kingdom
    • Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court)
    • 16 March 2012
    ...[45] above) is a most pertinent consideration. See, further, the authorities cited by Cranston J, at [43] – [46] of the judgment [2010] EWHC 2825 (Admin). ii) Given the nature of the decision, the SSHD must be accorded a wide margin of appreciation (or discretion). This is an area where, a......
  • Pamela Geller and Another v The Secretary of State for the Home Department
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 5 February 2015
    ...both then and subsequently, is described by Cranston J in his judgment in Naik v Secretary of State for the Home Department, [2010] EWHC 2825 (Admin) as follows: "39. Following the London bombings on 7 July 2005 ("7/7"), the then Secretary of State for the Home Department, Rt Hon Charles C......

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