Hijazi v Yaxley-Lennon (Orse Tommy Robinson): QBD 22 Jul 2021

No Valid Evidence to Support Serious Accusations

The claimant was filmed being assaulted in the school playground. The film was published on the internet, and the defendant right wing politician re-published it, but falsely said that the claimant had himself been violent.
Held: The defendant’s attempt to justify the libel had absolutely no basis in fact. The claim succeeded. The very public and widely distributed allegation had caused considerable damage and distress to the claimant.
The defendant had sought to have admitted films of third parties, but no supporting evidence had been provided, and some appeared to have no knowledge that they were being filmed, and the defendant gave leading questions, and no allowance was made for section 5 of the 1995 Act. The court concluded that the films did not represent the truth of what might have happened: ‘the Defendant has failed to demonstrate that the Claimant had any propensity to behave in an aggressive or abusive manner towards girls and women. For the reasons I have given, I am unable to accept the evidence of AYQ and BWI, but even if I had accepted it, it would not have demonstrated a propensity on the part of the Claimant to act in this way. The more reliable contemporaneous evidence in the school records provides powerful support for the conclusion that the Claimant did not behave in the way alleged.’
‘the Defendant’s truth defence must be rejected and judgment on the claim will be granted to the Claimant.’

The Honourable Mr Justice Nicklin
[2021] EWHC 2008 (QB)
Bailii, Judiciary
Defamation Act 2013 12, Civil Evidence Act 1995 4
England and Wales
CitedCairns v Modi CA 31-Oct-2012
Three appeals against the levels of damages awards were heard together, and the court considered the principles to be applied.
Held: In assessing compensation following a libel, the essential question was how much loss and damage did the . .
CitedBokova v Associated Newspapers Ltd QBD 31-Jul-2018
Nicklin J explained how circumstantial evidence might be admissible to prove the truth of a Chase level 2 meaning: ‘The ‘conduct rule’ and ‘circumstantial evidence’ have been further elucidated.
(i) While it is an essential requisite of a . .
CitedMonir v Wood QBD 19-Dec-2018
The court considered an online allegation of involvement in child sex abuse which was described as ‘life changing’ and having transformed the life of the claimant and his family and left him a recluse. Notwithstanding the ‘fairly limited . .
CitedHijazi v Yaxley-Lennon QBD 21-Apr-2020
The claimant said that distortions of a report of him being assaulted had been published by the defendant (otherwise Tommy Robinson) alleging violence on his part were defamatory. The court now determined the meanings of the publications. . .
CitedIn re Mumtaz Properties Ltd; Wetton v Ahmed CA 24-May-2011
Former directors appealed against finding as to their personal liability for directors’ and other loans.
Arden LJ discussed the task of a judge in fact finding: ‘By the end of the judgment, it is clear that what has impressed the judge most in . .
CitedMiller v Associated Newspapers Ltd QBD 21-Dec-2012
Judgment after trial on defamation case
Mrs Justice Sharp considered the use of hearsay evidence admitted under section 4 of the 1995 Act: ‘As the authors of Phipson on Evidence, 17th edition, say at paragraph 29-15 ‘the [Civil Evidence] Act is . .
CitedHourani v Thomson and Others QBD 10-Mar-2017
Warby J identified the three issues on which the claimant bore the burden of proof in relation to each defendant on a claim of harassment as: (1) Did the defendant engage in a course of conduct? (2) Did any such course of conduct amount to . .
CitedDepp II v News Group Newspapers Ltd and Another QBD 2-Nov-2020
. .
CitedLachaux v Lachaux FD 2-Mar-2017
. .
CitedTerluk v Berezovsky CA 15-Dec-2011
The defendant journalist appealed against a finding of defamation in a Russian radio broadcast to London. . .
CitedBarron and Another v Vines QBD 2-Jun-2016
The court assessed damages having found that the claimant Labour MPs had been defamed by the defendant UKIP local politician. The defamations related to the alleged failures to control substantial child sex abuse in Rotherham.
Held: The . .
ExemplarGlenn v Kline QBD 5-Mar-2021
. .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Defamation, Evidence

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.666147