Hourani v Thomson & Ors (Rev 1)

A person who knowingly organises, authorises or materially assists a sustained campaign of public and online accusations may be liable for both libel and harassment. A course of conduct targeting a person with repeated allegations of murder and other grave crimes can be oppressive and unacceptable, even where it is presented as protest or public-interest speech.

The statutory defences under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 require proof of their stated purpose or of reasonableness in the circumstances at the time. A paid and staged campaign based on serious allegations that were not responsibly verified was not reasonable. Under section 4 of the Defamation Act 2013, a defendant must actually and reasonably believe that publishing the particular statement is in the public interest.

The claimant brought claims in libel and under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 arising from a 2014 campaign alleging that he was involved in the murder and abuse of Anastasiya Novikova. The campaign comprised two London demonstrations, placards identifying him as a murderer, online publications, and stickers distributed near his home.

The fifth defendant directed the campaign for undisclosed clients. The first and second defendants assisted with the events, and the fourth defendant was the corporate vehicle through which the campaign was run. The third defendant permitted the use of her name and company but had little knowledge of the campaign. The principal issues concerned publication in England and Wales, responsibility, defamatory meaning, serious harm, harassment, and the statutory defences under the Defamation Act 2013 and the 1997 Act.

1. Judgment for the claimant against four defendants. Dr Waller, Mr Thomson, Mr McCarthy and Psybersolutions were liable to the extent of their respective participation. The claims against Ms Blair were dismissed because she lacked the knowledge and active involvement required for liability.
2. Publication and responsibility. The demonstrations, online material and stickers formed a deliberate campaign directed at the claimant. Online publication was proved by evidence of access in England and Wales. Dr Waller was responsible for the whole campaign. Psybersolutions was his corporate vehicle and was likewise responsible. Mr Thomson was responsible for the June event and consequential online publications. Mr McCarthy was additionally responsible for the November event, consequential publications and the later sticker campaign.
3. Libel. The publications conveyed gravely defamatory allegations that the claimant was a murderer or an accomplice in murder, torture, rape and related crimes. They caused serious harm to his reputation. The claimant proved actual reputational harm as well as a compelling inference from the gravity and extent of publication.
4. Harassment. The campaign involved conduct on more than two occasions. It was targeted, oppressive and objectively likely to cause, and did cause, alarm and substantial distress. The participants knew or ought to have known that repeated public accusations outside the claimant’s home and online would have that effect.
5. Defences. The defence of publication on a matter of public interest failed because Mr Thomson and Mr McCarthy did not prove that they believed publication of the particular murder allegations was in the public interest. The defences under section 1(3) of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 also failed. The dominant purpose was not the prevention or detection of crime. The campaign was highly unreasonable: it was staged, paid for, designed to put the claimant under pressure, and founded on unverified and unreliable material. The proposed amendment alleging murder, including under an asserted United States felony-murder rule, was refused.
6. Relief. Total compensatory damages for the campaign were assessed at £80,000. Appropriate injunctions were to be granted. The claimant was permitted to amend his claim to seek disclosure from Dr Waller of the identities of the clients who commissioned the campaign.

High Court (Queen's Bench Division): This was a first-instance merits judgment. The proceedings began in December 2014 against persons unknown and were later amended as the participants were identified. An earlier interim disclosure decision was recorded as [2017] EWHC 173 (QB).