Shah v Up And Coming TV Ltd & Ors

In determining the meaning of a short televised news item, the court must identify the single natural and ordinary meaning conveyed to a hypothetical reasonable viewer watching the whole broadcast once. The overall impression matters, and strained, literal or over-analytical interpretations should be avoided. Visual prominence does not necessarily attribute all surrounding criticism to the person shown, particularly where the individual is used only as an illustration of a wider political story.

Nationality alone is reputationally neutral. Conduct involving participation in a paid or assumed role at political demonstrations does not substantially damage reputation unless it seriously transgresses common, shared values. An innuendo may establish that a person presented himself as having another nationality, but does not necessarily impute dishonesty or moral turpitude without supporting context, explanation or intention.

The claimant brought libel and data protection claims concerning a four-minute Urdu-language news broadcast. The broadcast showed him prominently at two political demonstrations and described him as an Indian national who had acted as a Pakistani or Baloch participant and had been hired as part of alleged Indian government rent-a-crowd tactics.

A preliminary issues trial was directed to determine the natural and ordinary meaning, an assumed-facts innuendo meaning, whether either meaning was defamatory, and the personal data contained in the broadcast. The central questions were whether the broadcast conveyed additional imputations of personal bad faith, dishonesty and lack of genuine political commitment, and whether those meanings substantially affected the claimant’s reputation.

1. Natural and ordinary meaning. Applying the governing principle of reasonableness, the court had to determine the single meaning conveyed by the whole item to an ordinary reasonable viewer watching a short breaking-news broadcast once. The approach in Koutsogiannis v Random House Group [2020] 4 WLR 25 was applied, with the guidance in Skuse v Granada Television Ltd [1996] EMLR 278 and Shakil-Ur-Rahman v Ary Network Limited & Anor [2015] EWHC 2917 (QB) used to address the impression made by televised and translated material.
2. The broadcast conveyed that the claimant was Indian, had twice taken part in UK political demonstrations while acting as a Baloch nationalist and Pakistani citizen respectively, and had been hired by the Indian government as part of rent-a-crowd tactics. It did not convey that he acted dishonestly, lacked genuine concern for the causes, or personally participated in a wider conspiracy. Those additional imputations were strained and forced.
3. Innuendo. On the assumed facts, the broadcast conveyed that the claimant was Indian but had presented himself as Pakistani more widely in his personal and working life, as well as acting as Pakistani when hired for demonstrations. It did not convey that he was a liar or dishonest. The approach in Monroe v Hopkins [2017] 4 WLR 68 was applied.
4. Defamatory tendency. The test was whether the meaning substantially affected, or had a tendency substantially to affect, other people’s attitudes towards the claimant: Allen v Times Newspapers [2019] EWHC 1235; Thornton v Telegraph Media Group Ltd [2010] EWHC 1414. The relevant question was whether the conduct was contrary to common, shared values in UK society as a whole, applying Monroe v Hopkins and Millet v Corbyn [2020] EWHC 1848. Nationality alone was not defamatory. Participation in paid or assumed roles at demonstrations might attract disapproval, but did not seriously transgress shared democratic values or establish defamatory tendency.
5. Personal data. Following the guidance in NT1 v Google LLC [2018] EWHC 799 (QB), the court described the information held more fully and literally than the impressionistic meaning used for defamation. The data included the claimant’s identification, Indian nationality or heritage, participation in two demonstrations, assumed roles, and alleged hiring and payment by the Indian government.
6. Neither the natural and ordinary meaning nor the innuendo meaning was defamatory. The preliminary issues were determined accordingly.