Mueen-Uddin v Secretary of State for the Home Department

In a libel and data protection claim concerning a government report, meaning must be assessed by the impression made on the ordinary reasonable reader of the publication read in its proper context. Hyperlinked material is not automatically treated as part of an online publication. Whether a reader would follow a link depends on the nature of the publication, any direction to read the material and whether the publication makes sense without it.

Where the publication is self-contained and the link merely supplies supporting source material, the linked material need not be incorporated. The same contextual approach applies when identifying personal data and assessing accuracy under the GDPR.

The claimant brought libel and data protection claims against the Secretary of State concerning passages in the hard copy and online versions of the Commission for Countering Extremism’s report Challenging Hateful Extremism. The passages referred to links between persons responsible for violence in 1971 and Jamaat-e-Islami in the UK, and stated that the claimant had been found guilty of crimes against humanity following a trial in absentia.

The court ordered a preliminary trial of meaning, whether the publications conveyed the pleaded personal data, and whether the meaning was defamatory. The central issues were whether the claimant was identified as the senior Jamaat-e-Islami leader referred to in the main text, and whether the online hyperlink to a Channel 4 webpage and embedded video formed part of the publication’s context.

1. Meaning of the hard copy report. The court held that the hard copy report conveyed that the claimant was one of those responsible for war crimes committed during a 1971 War of Independence in South Asia, and had committed crimes against humanity during that war. Those meanings were allegations of fact and were defamatory at common law.
2. The footnote did not identify the claimant as the particular senior Jamaat-e-Islami leader mentioned in the main text. It introduced the separate topic of links between those responsible for the 1971 violence and Jamaat-e-Islami in the UK. The reference to serious criminal violence was not included because crimes against humanity could, but would not necessarily, include such violence.
3. Meaning of the online report. The hyperlink at the end of footnote 158 was supporting citation material, not a direction or exhortation to read the Channel 4 webpage. The footnote was self-contained and made sense without the webpage and video. The ordinary reasonable reader was therefore not required to follow the hyperlink, and the online report bore the same meaning as the hard copy report.
4. In deciding whether hyperlinked material forms part of an online publication, relevant considerations include the nature of the publication, directions to read the linked material, and whether the publication makes sense without it. There is no hard and fast rule.
5. Data protection claim. Applying the contextual approach in NT1 v Google LLC [2019] QB 344 and Aven v Orbis Business Intelligence Ltd [2020] EWHC 1812 (QB), the personal data conveyed by both versions was materially the same as the meanings found for the libel claim. It included that the claimant was a member of Jamaat-e-Islami, was one of those responsible for the war crimes, had committed crimes against humanity, had been found guilty following a trial in absentia, and provided a link between those responsible and Jamaat-e-Islami in the UK.

First-instance determination of preliminary issues. No prior appellate decision is stated in the judgment.