Begg v British Broadcasting Corporation

In a defamation claim, the meaning of words complained of is determined objectively by the single meaning conveyed to the ordinary reasonable viewer, taking the broadcast as a whole and avoiding over-analysis. The meaning of previous speeches relied upon to justify the publication is assessed more flexibly: the court asks whether a reasonable section of the audience would have understood the speeches to convey the relevant message.

A defence of justification succeeds if the substance, or essential sting, of the allegation is substantially true. Errors concerning detail do not defeat the defence where they do not materially affect the defamatory charge. In this context, repeated advocacy of armed religious violence and extremist positions established substantial truth.

The claimant, the Chief Imam of Lewisham Islamic Centre, sued the BBC for libel arising from a broadcast on Sunday Politics. The BBC admitted publication and defamatory meaning but pleaded justification, relying on speeches, online postings and other utterances made between 2006 and 2011.

The claimant alleged that the broadcast accused him of encouraging hatred, violence and murder. The BBC contended that it meant that he was an extremist Islamic speaker who had recently promoted religious violence by praising jihad as the greatest of deeds. The central issues were the meaning of the broadcast, whether those meanings were substantially true, and the appropriate remedy.

1. Meaning. Applying the principles in Jeynes v News Magazines Ltd [2008] EWCA Civ 130, Skuse v Granada Television Ltd [1996] EMLR 278 and Bond v BBC [2009] EWHC 539 (QB), the broadcast conveyed two meanings: that the claimant was an extremist Islamic speaker who espoused extremist Islamic positions, and that he had recently promoted and encouraged religious violence by telling Muslims that violence in support of Islam would constitute a man’s greatest deed.
2. Meaning of previous speeches. The court distinguished the artificial single-meaning exercise from the assessment of previous utterances relied upon for justification. The question was whether a reasonable section of the relevant audience would have taken the words to convey the asserted message. The court considered the audience, context, level of attention, the speech as a whole and any qualifications, while treating the claimant’s intention as irrelevant.
3. Extremist positions. The court found that the claimant repeatedly reduced jihad to armed combat, presented fighting as a religious duty, endorsed extremist authorities and ideologies, encouraged aggressive jihad, expressed hostility to non-Islamic states and gave unqualified support to certain prisoners and violent Islamist figures. The Deviant Groups speech alone established both limbs of the defamatory meaning.
4. Justification. Under the common law and the Defamation Act 1952, the BBC had to prove substantial truth. The court applied the principle that the substance of the allegation matters and that the defence does not fail because every detail is inaccurate. The location and timing errors did not materially affect the sting, particularly because the speeches remained accessible online.
5. Disposition. The BBC succeeded in its defence of justification. The claim was dismissed. The judge added that, even if justification had not been fully established, the claimant’s reckless and irresponsible use of language would have resulted in nil or nominal damages.