The High Court has given judgment following a trial of preliminary issues in the defamation claim brought by John Ware, the journalist/broadcaster, against Roger Waters, the musician and founder of Pink Floyd, and Al Jazeera Media Network.
The background to this libel action is a programme which Mr Ware made about Mr Waters in 2023 for the organisation the Campaign Against Antisemitism called “The Dark Side of Roger Waters” (“C’s Documentary”). The CAA broadcast C’s Documentary on their YouTube channel.
Mr Ware’s claim is brought in respect to an interview Mr Waters subsequently gave to Anelise Borges in February 2024 for the Al Jazeera programme “The Stream”, which was broadcast (in two different edits) on Al Jazeera English and/or via Al Jazeera’s YouTube channel. The programme was broadcast with the title “Roger Waters on Gaza, Resistance and Doing the Right Thing”.
In addition to meaning, the Court determined whether the statements complained of were fact or opinion and (to the extent that they were opinions), whether s.3(3) of the Defamation Act 2013 (namely whether the statement complained of indicated in general or specific terms the basis of the opinion) was satisfied.
In a judgment handed down on 25 February 2025, Mrs Justice Jennifer Eady found that the programme (in both edits) bore the following natural and ordinary meaning:
1. The claimant had made a documentary that contained lies about the first defendant, and he had done that as a response to the first defendant’s public support for the Palestinian cause because he (the claimant) was acting as a Zionist mouthpiece and wanted to undermine what the first defendant was saying.
2. The claimant positively supported the genocide of the Palestinian people by Israeli forces (whereby “genocide” means the wholescale destruction of the Palestinian people).
The Judge held that the underlined words were statements of fact but that the remainder were expressions of opinion. Further, the basis of the opinion in meaning (1) was indicated to be C’s Documentary, and, in respect to meaning (2), the basis of the opinion (ie what genocide meant in this context) was indicated to be the conduct of Israeli forces in Gaza.
The Judgment includes a synthesis of numerous authorities on the identification of opinion.
The Court will shortly give directions for the progress of the action.
William Bennett KC, instructed by Patron Law for the Claimant; Adam Wolanski KC; Kate Wilson, instructed by Russells Solicitors for the First Defendant; Jane Phillips, instructed by Carter-Ruck for the Second Defendant.
The judgment is available here.