NASIR MEHMOOD (BUTT) v DUNYA NEWS LIMITED

Meaning in a broadcast libel claim is determined objectively by the single natural and ordinary meaning conveyed to the ordinary, reasonable and typical viewer. The court must assess the overall impression in context, allowing for the speed and impressionistic nature of news broadcasts and avoiding literal, strained or lawyerly analysis. A publisher may adopt or endorse allegations by repeating them without qualification, even where they are attributed to third parties. Whether words convey fact or opinion is also objective and depends on substance, context and the impression made on the viewer. Serious criminal imputations are defamatory where they substantially affect, or tend to affect, other people’s attitude towards the claimant.

The claimant, a Pakistani political figure resident in the United Kingdom, brought a libel claim against the publisher of an Urdu-language television news channel. The claim concerned broadcasts on 6, 7 and 12 July 2019 relating to allegations surrounding a video involving a Pakistani judge and former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif.

On written submissions, the court determined the natural and ordinary meaning of the broadcasts, whether the meanings conveyed factual allegations or expressions of opinion, and whether they were defamatory at common law. The central issue was how the material would have been understood by the ordinary, reasonable viewer in its immediate broadcast context.

1. Meaning and viewing context. The court had to determine the single natural and ordinary meaning conveyed to the hypothetical ordinary, reasonable and typical viewer. The governing principle was reasonableness, and the broadcaster’s intention was irrelevant. News and current-affairs broadcasts should be assessed by their overall impression, allowing for rapid, impressionistic consumption and avoiding literalism, strained interpretation and over-elaborate analysis. Immediate context and common knowledge could be considered, but special knowledge and external evidence of meaning could not.
2. Repetition and attribution. Applying Brown v Bower, the question was whether allegations attributed to others had been adopted or endorsed by the publisher, or whether the broadcast had put distance between the publisher and the allegations. The court found that the unqualified repetition of serious allegations in ticker headlines and news summaries conveyed factual imputations rather than merely reported allegations.
3. Fact and opinion. The distinction was objective and depended on how the material would strike the ordinary, reasonable viewer, having regard to substance, subject matter and context. The broadcasts conveyed factual allegations of murder, drug dealing, criminal gang leadership and fugitive status. Other imputations, including that the claimant might have attempted to bribe or influence the judge, or was the sort of person used by organised crime for blackmail, were expressions of opinion.
4. Defamation and outcome. The serious allegations of criminal conduct and the related imputations of bribery, criminal association and propensity substantially affected, or tended to affect, attitudes towards the claimant and were defamatory at common law. The court therefore determined the meanings and classifications set out at paragraphs [44], [51], [53] and [66], and held that the publications were defamatory.