Mohamed Amersi v BBC

In determining the natural and ordinary meaning of a publication, the court must adopt the perspective of the hypothetical reasonable reader or viewer and assess the publication as a whole. A television programme is ordinarily viewed once, so its overall impression and presentation may outweigh detailed analysis of a transcript. The court must avoid both naïve and unduly suspicious interpretations, while recognising that context may strengthen or weaken the defamatory meaning. Chase levels are useful shorthand, not a rigid framework. The degree of suspicion may fall on a spectrum, including strong grounds to suspect. Where publications present a common allegation arising from a person’s wider business relationship, detailed examples may support that general meaning without creating separate imputations.

The claimant brought a defamation claim concerning a BBC Panorama programme and BBC News article about his work as a consultant for Telia and the source of his wealth, in the context of substantial political donations. The court ordered a trial of preliminary issues concerning the natural and ordinary meaning of each publication and whether that meaning was defamatory at common law. The defendant admitted that the meanings advanced by either party were defamatory. The central dispute concerned the level of suspicion conveyed and whether the publications alleged specific wrongdoing or a broader common sting.

1. The court determined the natural and ordinary meaning of each publication separately. It first viewed or read the words to form a provisional impression, before considering the parties’ pleaded cases and submissions.
2. The hypothetical reasonable viewer would watch the Programme once without a transcript, notes or repeated viewing. Its overall impression, framing and context were therefore important. The Article, although read as text, was likewise to be considered as a whole and without over-elaborate analysis.
3. Both publications were framed around political donations, the claimant’s wealth and his wider relationship with Telia. The specific Uzbekistan transaction and other payments were presented as parts of that broader context, rather than as separate and distinct allegations.
4. The court accepted the defendant’s proposed common sting in substance, but held that the publications conveyed strong grounds for suspecting that, during his work for Telia, the claimant had been involved in deals on its behalf which he knew or should have known were corrupt or involved corrupt payments. The seriousness and repetition of the allegations, references to corruption, the graphic explaining the bribe, the sums paid, and the termination of the relationship strengthened the suspicion. The denials provided some dilution but did not alter the overall meaning.
5. The meaning was defamatory at common law, as agreed. The defendant’s application for a separate costs order concerning the preliminary-issue application was refused. Although the claimant’s approach was unhelpful, the defendant would have needed to issue the application and a separate costs dispute was disproportionate. The application costs were therefore costs in the case.