High Court preliminary trial judgment holds that Ed Husain tweet defamed Miqdaad Versi at common law

In a judgment handed down on 3 March 2023, following a libel Preliminary Trial, HHJ Lewis, sitting as a Judge of the High Court, has held that a tweet by ‘Ed’ Husain was defamatory of Miqdaad Versi at common law. Mr Husain’s case that the tweet had a non-defamatory meaning and that the libel claim should therefore be dismissed was rejected by the Court.

The judgment is notable for its rejection of an ambitious case by Mr Husain on Twitter context. It held that in the fast paced medium of Twitter, the ordinary reader will gather sufficient information to understand what the tweet is about but will not look any further. The case also involved the extent to which general knowledge contributed to the defamatory meaning, and it addressed the distinction between the range of views protected by freedom of expression in a diverse society and the behaviours or views that are contrary to common, shared values of society.

The publication and its context

In the allegedly defamatory publication (the Tweet), Mr Husain stated of Mr Versi: “Pipe down, you Pro-Hamas Pro-Iran Pro-gender discrimination Pro-blasphemy laws Pro-sectarian Anti-Western ‘Representative’ of an Islamist outfit.”

Below those words appeared, as a ‘quote tweet’, an embedded screenshot of part of a tweet by Mr Versi: “Why does Fraser Nelson – a man who as editor is accountable for so much anti-Muslim hate propagated in the Spectator- think it is appropriate to explain Islamophobia to a Muslim woman”. 

Mr Versi contended that the Tweet was freestanding, or else that if the ordinary Twitter reader clicked on the immediately following words “show this thread”, he would then, having read the immediate thread, see no need to click any further link to understand what Mr Husain was alleging. Mr Versi’s immediate thread criticised how the Spectator covered Islam and Muslims and quote-tweeted a tweet by its editor, Fraser Nelson. Mr Versi contended, in the alternative, that none of the links relied on by Mr Husain would affect the meaning of the Tweet.

Mr Husain relied on some 15 further tweets beyond the immediate thread as relevant context (for the purpose of meaning and also for whether the Tweet was defamatory), which he invited the Court to read starting with a tweet by Zarah Sultana MP followed by tweets by Mr Versi as far back as 2019 and “culminating” in the Tweet. Mr Versi responded that if read at all, the ordinary reader would begin with the Tweet so could not read the further tweets in the way portrayed by Mr Husain (something that Mr Husain acknowledged at the hearing). 

In its judgment, the Court held that the ordinary reader would click once to see the immediate thread, but would not click further to see the tweet from Ms Sultana MP or the other materials relied on by Mr Husain. They were neither part of the publication nor relevant context. The immediate thread gave the ordinary reader sufficient information to understand what was being said.

The Court further held that the additional materials advanced by Mr Husain “did not assist in determining meaning in any event”.

Defamatory meaning

The Court ruled that the Tweet conveyed the following defamatory meaning ((a) and (b) being factual and (c) being opinion):

The claimant has expressed views that are supportive of the repressive regime in Iran, gender discrimination, blasphemy laws and sectarianism and which are anti-Western.

The claimant has expressed views that are supportive of Hamas, a militant Islamist group with known links to violence.

The claimant holds extremist, Islamist views. His endorsement of such views is so objectionable that he has no place participating in this public debate.

This did not correspond to either party’s pleaded meaning.  Mr Versi’s meaning was held to be too strained as it required the reader to apply a significant level of thought and analysis and an unrealistic amount of reading between the lines.

However, Mr Husain’s allegedly non-defamatory meaning was held to be too literal. Other than replacing “representative of an Islamist outfit” with “Mr Versi advocates for the interests of an Islamist organisation”, his meaning adopted the words of the Tweet. The Court held that “the meaning conveyed by the Tweet does not just come from looking at each line in isolation” and had to be “read cumulatively”, and that the meaning was reinforced by the use of ‘Islamist’ and its connection to what the Court held was the pejorative term ‘outfit’. This reflected Mr Versi’s case.

Mr Husain’s meaning gave no explanation of what the words ‘pro-Hamas’ and ‘pro-Iran’ conveyed. The Court, however, relied on the ordinary reader’s general knowledge to hold that the Tweet meant that Mr Versi expressed views “supportive” of “a militant Islamist group with known links to violence” and of a “repressive regime”. It also accepted that the Tweet imputed Islamist views to Mr Versi personally (rather than merely to an ‘organisation’ for whom he advocated, as Mr Husain had submitted).

The Court rejected the non-defamatory opinion meaning advanced by Mr Husain regarding Mr Versi’s “advocacy and views” and found that the defamatory opinion meaning included that “His endorsement of such views is so objectionable that he has no place participating in this public debate.” 

The Court applied the test in Millett v Corbyn as to whether the Tweet was defamatory, and noted Mr Versi’s position that “it cannot be the case that the defendant can simply publish with impunity these very serious charges that the claimant says are utterly false”.

The Court stated that “We live in a modern, diverse society which recognises the importance of freedom of thought, and of expression” and “Ordinarily, right-thinking members of society generally would not think less of someone for simply expressing their views on a matter, or disagreeing with another.” It went on to reject Mr Husain’s case that his criticism was not defamatory of Mr Versi because it was about the effect of his views. It held that it targeted Mr Versi’s views themselves, and his expression of them.

The Court concluded:

“Whilst stating that a person holds some of the views identified in the Tweet would not in itself be defamatory, the Tweet needs to be looked at in its entirety. Right thinking members of society generally would deplore those who express views in support of Hamas, as a militant Islamist group with known links to violence. It is also contrary to the common or shared values of our society to express extremist views that are so objectionable as to undermine the legitimacy of the defendant’s own participation in public debate. Attributing such views to the claimant would lower a person in the estimation of ‘right-thinking people generally.”

The ruling means that Mr Husain must now advance any substantive defence(s) to having published the defamatory imputation, or some other ground for resisting liability at the final trial.  

The judgment is published here.