News Group Newspapers [2005] EWHC 799 at [109]:
“The Court should not be too literal in its approach or insist on proof
of every detail where it is not essential to the sting of the article…..
“…It becomes important in such a case to isolate the essential
core of the libel and not to be distracted by inaccuracies around
the edge – however extensive.”
66.
A similar point is to be found in section 5(1) of the 1952 Act:
“In an action for libel or slander in respect of words containing
two or more distinct charges against the plaintiff, a defence of
justification shall not fail by reason only that the truth of every
charge is not proved if the words not proved to be true do not
materially injure the plaintiff’s reputation having regard to the
truth of the remaining charges.”
FIRST ISSUE: MEANING OF WORDS COMPLAINED OF
Dispute as to meaning of WCO
67.
The dispute as to meaning of the words complained of (“WCO”) is of fairly narrow
compass.
68.
The Claimant alleged that, in either their natural and ordinary and/or innuendo
meaning, the WCO mean that:
69.
(1)
“The Claimant is a member of a rogue’s gallery of extremists who
actively encourage the hatred of, violence towards and murder of nonMuslims.”
(2)
“The Claimant promotes and encourages religious violence by telling
Muslims that violence in support of Islam would constitute a man’s
greatest deed.”
In its pleaded and written case, the BBC denied the Claimant’s meanings and said that
the WCO meant exactly what they say, namely that the Claimant has preached the
extremist position that jihad, in the sense of violence in the name of Islam, is “the
greatest of deeds”. The BBC accepted that this was obviously a defamatory meaning.
The BBC put forward the following Lucas-Box meanings (and pleaded justification to
this and to the Claimant’s pleaded meanings):
(1)
“The Claimant is an extremist Islamic speaker who espouses extremist
Islamic positions; and/or
(2)
the Claimant has recently and publicly voiced his support for jihad (in
the sense of violent action in the name of Islam) to Muslim audiences;
and/or
(3)
the Claimant’s public statements are liable to promote and/or encourage
violent action in the name of Islam.”
17