(1) The words complained of meant that: (1) The C is an extremist Islamic speaker who espouses extremist Islamic positions; and (2) the C had recently promoted and encouraged religious violence by telling Muslims that violence in support of Islam would constitute a man’s greatest deed.
(2) The principles in determining the meaning of previous statements and speeches which are material to the D’s defence of justification are as follows:
a) The single meaning rule for the determination of the meaning of the words complained of does not apply;
b) The test is “whether a section of the audience would reasonably take the words spoken to convey a particular message”; and
c) The principles outlined in Jeynes v News Magazine  EWCA Civ 130 on the determination of meaning are modified to conform with this different test.
(3) The court undertook a detailed, rigorous, and sophisticated theological, ideological and syntactical analysis of the speeches and statements to aid in a proper understanding of their true meaning and compare those meanings with ten archetypical propositions that represent an extremist Islamic viewpoint.
(4) Of the nine speeches and statements the D relied on in support of its defence of justification six represented examples of the C espousing extremist Islamic positions. The D asked the court not to place too much weight on two others and the court found that although the ninth: “is not it itself evidence of extremism, the LIC letter nevertheless re-enforced the picture of Mr Begg as someone who expresses intemperate views”.
(5) Taken together, the C’s speeches and statements represented an: “overwhelming case of justification”. Accordingly, the D had succeeded in its defence in that the words complained of were substantially true. The substantial truth of the words complained of was not affected by two errors contained in the D’s broadcast, the substance of the charges against C remained true.
(6) Obiter: As the claim did not succeed no remedies were available to C, although if the defence of justification was not made out on the evidence the damages available would have been nil or nominal due to the C’s: “reckless and irresponsible use of language”.