Judgment has been handed down by Mr Justice Johnson in favour of the Defendants in Mohammed Hegab v (1) The Spectator (2) Douglas Murray.
The claim arose from an article written by Douglas Murray and published in The Spectator: Leicester and the downside with diversity. It considered the street conflict in Leicester in 2022 between groups of largely young male Muslims and Hindus. The article reported that during the unrest, the Claimant travelled to Leicester and made an inflammatory speech and engaged in street agitation. It also referred to similar activity by Mr Hegab at an anti-Israel protest in London.
The Judge determined that the meaning of the article was that: “The claimant is a street agitator who has whipped up a mob on London’s streets, addressed an anti-Israel protest in inflammatory terms, and exacerbated frayed tensions (which had already spilled over into public disorder) between Muslim and Hindu communities in Leicester by whipping up his Muslim followers including by ridiculing Hindus for their belief in re-incarnation and describing Hindus as pathetic, weak and cowardly in comparison to whom he would rather be an animal.”
The trial principally concerned serious harm to reputation and the Defendants’ truth defence.
The Claimant’s claim that he had suffered serious harm to his reputation failed for a number of reasons, including that there was a general absence of such evidence and that where such evidence was advanced, it was “confected”.
The Defendants’ truth defence succeeded. The Judge was satisfied that the article was substantially true due to the way in which the Claimant had behaved in Leicester and at the anti-Israel protest, as well as due to his behaviour at a further incident in Golders Green and due to comments he made on another occasion about Hinduism. The Judge found that at the anti-Israel protest: “He was deliberately acting irresponsibly, raising the temperature of a volatile and potentially dangerous situation with provocative and inflammatory language.”
The Judge made the following conclusion about the Claimant at [43]: “As a witness, he was combative and constantly argumentative. He sought, at every turn, to debate with counsel, responding to questions with (rhetorical) questions of his own, arguing his case rather than giving straightforward responses, and denigrating the character of the second defendant to whom he bears palpable personal animosity. I am satisfied that he lied on significant issues, with the consequence that his evidence, overall, is worthless.”
The judgment has been reported as follows:
- Jewish Chronicle (article 1)
- Jewish Chronicle (article 2)
- The Telegraph (£)
- The Spectator (£)
- The Times (£)
William Bennett KC, instructed by Mark Lewis of Patron Law, acted for Douglas Murray, and Greg Callus and Hector Penny, instructed by Alex Wilson of RPC, for The Spectator.