Charity accused of defaming former employee over evidence given to Manchester bombing inquiry

On 10 February 2025, the High Court handed down a preliminary issue trial judgment in El-Saeiti v The Islamic Centre (Manchester) & others [2025] EWHC 266 (KB), which ruled that an Islamic charity’s allegation that one of its former imams had knowingly given false evidence to an inquiry into the Manchester Arena bombing was defamatory at common law.  However, a statement by one of the charity’s trustees that the former imam was a “liar” was found to not be defamatory.  We provide a summary of the judgment below.

Facts

The Claimant, Mohammed Saeed El-Saeiti, is a former Imam at the Didsbury Mosque in Manchester.  He was employed by the First Defendant, the Islamic Centre (Manchester).  The Third Defendant, Fawzi Mohammed Haffar, is one of the trustees of the First Defendant.  The claim against the Second Defendant was discontinued.

Mr El-Saeiti brought a libel claim against the Defendants over various publications commenting on evidence Mr El-Saeiti had given to the statutory public inquiry into the 2017 terrorist bombing at Manchester Arena.  These included:-

• four broadcasts by the BBC, which reported a comment made by the Third Defendant calling the Claimant a "liar" (‘BBC Statement’); and
• a press statement put out by the First Defendant, which stated that “had Mr Saeiti been cross-examined and had his evidence been tested, he would have been found lacking in credibility and his evidence widely dismissed” (‘Press Statement’).

Issue

A preliminary issue trial was held to determine the meanings of the statements complained of, whether those meanings are defamatory of Mr El-Saeiti at common law, and whether they were statements of fact or opinion (and if opinion, whether the basis of the opinion was indicated).

Judgment

BBC Statement

Mr Justice Sheldon first determined the meaning of the BBC Statement.  In doing so, he considered the entirety of the BBC broadcasts, not only the words spoken in the interview.  He found the meaning to be: “Despite contrary protestations by the Chairman of the Didsbury Mosque, the Imam who had given evidence to the inquiry about political meetings had done so truthfully.”  This was held to be a statement of fact, rather than opinion.

Mr Justice Sheldon found that the meaning of the BBC Statement was not defamatory of Mr El-Saeiti at common law.  He stated that the Third Defendant’s allegation that Mr El-Saeiti was a liar would not have been regarded by the ordinary reasonable viewer as a believable statement, in light of factors such as the findings of the inquiry (including that the Third Defendant had not been found to be ‘reliable’ in his own evidence) and the way in which the interviewer asked the Third Defendant questions and put information to him (implicitly challenging the veracity of his remarks about Mr El-Saeti).  Mr Justice Sheldon remarked that this was a “classic example of where the bane has been neutralised completely by the antidote” (in other words, where the potentially defamatory allegation – the ‘bane’ – was neutralised/offset by another part of the publication – the ‘antidote’).  A claim of defamation with respect to the BBC Statement could therefore not be made out.

Press Statement

Mr Justice Sheldon next considered the meaning of the Press Statement.  He determined that the ordinary reasonable reader would understand this to be: “whilst the Claimant's evidence was preferred by the Chair [of the inquiry], if he had been cross-examined he would have been found to have given evidence which he knew to be false”.  He found that the reasonable reader would not know that knowingly giving false evidence is a criminal offence, but would know that doing so is wrong.

The Press Statement was found to be one of opinion and not fact.  It was significant that the First Defendant had explicitly described its allegation of Mr El-Saeiti to be “the opinion of Didsbury Mosque”.  Additionally, Mr Justice Sheldon considered the words to implicitly convey that this was speculation by the First Defendant.  The meaning of the Press Statement was found to be defamatory of Mr El-Saeiti at common law, on the basis that an ordinary reasonable reader would think less of Mr El-Saeiti if he had given evidence which he knew to be false.  The claim with respect to the Press Statement can therefore proceed.