Shakeel Begg v British Broadcasting Corporation
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Justice Haddon-Cave |
| Judgment Date | 28 October 2016 |
| Neutral Citation | [2016] EWHC 2688 (QB) |
| Docket Number | Case No: HQ14D04379 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division |
| Date | 28 October 2016 |
[2016] EWHC 2688 (QB)
The Hon. Mr Justice Haddon-Cave
Case No: HQ14D04379
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
William Bennett (instructed by Rahman Lowe) for the Claimant
Andrew Caldecott QC and Jane Phillips (instructed by the BBC Litigation Department) for the Defendant
Hearing dates: 27 th June to 1 st July 2016
Approved Judgment
If this Judgment has been emailed to you it is to be treated as 'read-only'. I You should send any suggested amendments as a separate Word document.
INTRODUCTION
The Claimant, Shakeel Begg, the Chief Imam at Lewisham Islamic Centre, claims damages against the Defendant ("the BBC") for libel in respect of a broadcast of the "Sunday Politics" current affairs television programme on BBC1 on the morning of 3 rd November 2013.
The Sunday Politics programme was hosted by the well-known journalist and broadcaster, Andrew Neil. It lasted an hour and was watched by over 838,000 people. It was subsequently viewed on iPlayer and YouTube. The programme opened with a roving reporter posing the question "Are mosques doing enough to counter extremism?". The broadcast then switched to the studio where Mr Neil interviewed an invited studio guest from the Muslim Council of Britain, particularly on the subject of the treatment of women under Islam.
Words complained of
The Claimant complains of the following words spoken by Mr Neil mid-way during that interview:
"The East London Mosque, which you personally and the MCB closely associated with, it's also the venue for a number of extremist speakers and speakers who espouse extremist positions. This year Shakeel Begg, he spoke there and hailed jihad as "the greatest of deeds". In 2009 the mosque hosted a video presentation by somebody described by US security as an Al-Quaeda supporter. You had another speaker there who in the past had described Christians and Jews as "filth". You've had a jihadist supporter of the Taliban there. Why do you do nothing to stop extremism, extremists like that, at this mosque with which you're associated with."
The Claimant said that he came to learn of what had been said about him on the "Sunday Politics" programme from third parties and felt upset at having been portrayed in this way.
He subsequently brought a complaint under the BBC complaints procedure. On 1 st April 2014, the BBC's Editorial Complaints Unit wrote to the Claimant indicating that it was minded to uphold the Claimant's complaint. However, on 30 th July 2014, the BBC's Editorial Complaints Unit wrote again saying that it was taking the unusual step of withdrawing its ruling following research on the Web which revealed a previous speech and open letter attributed to the Claimant. It is common ground that the ruling of the BBC's Editorial Complaints Unit, and its withdrawal, are irrelevant on the issue of liability but may be material to damages if that issue arises. The Court will decide the issues in question entirely afresh.
BBC's plea of justification
The BBC admits the words complained of ("WCO") were broadcast, admits they are prima facie defamatory, but pleads justification, i.e. that they are substantially true. The BBC relies, in particular, on previous speeches and utterances by the Claimant between 2006 and 2011 in which it submits the Claimant espoused extremist Islamic views. The burden of proof rests on the party claiming justification, i.e. the BBC.
The BBC accepts that there were two errors of detail in the WCO. First, as to location: the BBC accepts the Claimant did not preach jihad as "the greatest of deeds" at the East London Mosque, but asserts he did so elsewhere. Second, as to timing: the BBC accepts the Claimant did not so preach in 2013, but asserts he did so in previous years. The BBC contends, however, that neither of these errors is of significance, and that the substance of its charges against the Claimant remain true.
The Claimant's response
The Claimant denies being an extremist speaker and denies that any of his previous speeches and utterances, on their true interpretation, demonstrate him espousing extremist views. The Claimant also puts forward a positive case that he has always been against extremism and relies on his inter-faith and community work in support of this.
THE ISSUES
The issues for the Court's determination are, therefore, three-fold:
(1) What do the words complained of mean?
(2) Are they substantially true in those meanings?
(3) If not, what remedies ought to be granted?
EVIDENCE AND MATERIALS
Both sides filed extensive evidence at the trial. The BBC filed transcripts of the previous speeches and utterances of the Claimant relied upon. The Claimant filed a lengthy witness statement and voluminous supporting materials. The Claimant gave oral evidence and was cross-examined. Both sides lodged expert reports and materials on Islam and called expert witnesses, Professor Robert Gleave for the Claimant and Dr Matthew Wilkinson for the BBC, both of whom were cross-examined. A full transcript of the oral evidence was supplied to me. I was also supplied with various DVDs featuring the "Sunday Politics" programme and several of the Claimant's previous speeches.
In view of the numerous references to the Qur'an by the witnesses in their written evidence, I have read and studied the entire Qur'an (using the translation referred to by the Claimant namely, "The Qur'an, A new translation by M.A.S. Abdel Haleem" published by Oxford University Press, 2004). I have also read the copy of Sayyid Qutb's book "Milestones" supplied to me by Counsel for the BBC during the hearing (published by Islamic Book Services (P) Ltd of New Delhi, 2002).
The Claimant was represented by Mr William Bennett and the BBC were represented by Mr Andrew Caldecott QC and Ms Jane Phillips. I am grateful to all Counsel and their legal teams for their able assistance.
THE CLAIMANT
The Claimant, Shakeel Begg, is 47 years old. He was born in Nairobi, Kenya. He arrived in the UK aged 8. He grew up in the London Borough of Lewisham and went to school and college in South London. He travelled to Saudi Arabia and attended the Islamic University of Medinah ("IUM") for five years, where he studied classical Islamic disciplines, including Islamic sciences, theology, Shari'a law, Arabic language and Qur'an recitation. IUM is an important centre for the training of Sunni Muslim clerics and is closely associated with broadly Salafi 1 approach to Muslim religious beliefs.
He returned to the UK in 1996. He was appointed Chief Imam at Lewisham Islamic Centre ("LI C") in 1998. LIC was established in the late 1970 and is a registered charity with its own primary school and after-school academy for young Muslims. It serves a large Muslim population in Lewisham and beyond and plays a central role in the life of the local Muslim community.
The Claimant obtained an MA in Islamic Studies from Markfield Institute of Higher Education in Leicester in 2005–2006 and diplomas in Islamic Finance, Chaplaincy and Jurisprudence in 2008–2009. In 2009, he was appointed an Imam at the Redbridge Islamic Centre in East London, but returned to continue his role as Chief Imam at LIC on 1 st September 2011. He is currently Chief Imam and Khateeb (a person who delivers the weekly sermons) at the LIC. He is an employee and trustee of the LIC.
In his detailed witness statement, the Claimant highlighted his community and inter-faith work (see further below). He also repeatedly stressed in his witness statement, as he did during his oral evidence, his commitment to non-violence and that Islam is a religion of peace:
"53. … As a Muslim, I am committed to combatting extremism in all its forms because it is destroying our social harmony, creating suspicion and poisoning the minds of our youth. The actions of groups such as the so called "Islamic State, ISIL or
ISIS", are responsible for destroying the reputation of Islam, a religion that promotes peace, tolerance, justice, fairness and equality. I am totally opposed to ISIS and have actively campaigned and spoken out against the evils of ISIS""59. … The teachings of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) have been misconstrued and I consider it my duty to deconstruct any warped interpretations of Islam that may encourage someone to commit unlawful violence against the teachings of Islam."
The Claimant pointed to the fact that he has publicly spoken out against 'ISIS', in particular on 20 th September 2014 when he made an appeal for the British hostage, Alan Henning, to be released.
The Claimant also pointed to the fact that, on 22 nd May 2013, the LIC issued a press statement condemning the murder of Lee Rigby (both Michael Adebolajo and Michael Adebowale were attendees at Friday prayers at LIC). He said that if he had somehow come to know that the Lee Rigby killers were about to commit murder, he would have reported them to the police. He referred to the fact that he said the following in his Friday sermon (khutba) on 24 th May 2013:
"…[T]he tragic events which took place in Woolwich, the brutal killing and murder of Lee Rigby goes against the very foundations of our Religion and the characterisation of a Muslim. As Muslims, we find this act to be something totally abhorrent and unacceptable and we extend our and the condolences of the Lewisham Muslim community to the family and friends of Lee Rigby for their loss."
The Claimant explained how stunned and surprised he was to learn from friends and attendees at the LIC that he had been labelled "an extremist preacher who promotes violent jihad" by the BBC Sunday Politics show. He said it was very damaging to him personally as an Imam. The Claimant said...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rachel Riley v Laura Murray
...expression. 58 The key authority upon which Mr McCormick places substantial reliance is the decision of Haddon-Cave J in Begg v BBC [2016] EWHC 2688 (QB). 59 Begg was a libel claim that arose from an edition of the Sunday Politics television programme broadcast by the BBC. The words compla......
-
Rachel Riley v Laura Murray
...the meaning stated” in the Defendant's Tweet. In support of this contention the defendant relies, as she did below, on Begg v BBC [2016] EWHC 2688 (QB) (“ Begg”). The defendant argues that on this approach she was entitled to succeed because on the Judge's own findings of fact a section of......
-
Dr. Salman Butt v The Secretary of State for the Home Department
...but what was actually said, and how what was said about Dr. Butt was presented. 51 Miss Skinner referred us to the case of Begg v BBC [2016] EWHC 2688 (QB). In that case, the only substantive defence to a libel claim in respect of an allegation that Dr. Begg was an extremist Islamic speake......
-
A Local Authority v HB (First Respondent) MB (Second Respondent) ML and BL (by their Children's Guardian) (Third and Fourth Respondents)
...the analysis (undertaken within the context of a plea of justification in a libel action) of Haddon-Cave J in the case of Begg v BBC [2016] EWHC 2688 (QB) at [117] to [128] of positions that may be considered "extremist Islamic positions" in the context of Islam and Islamic doctrinal posit......