MR JUSTICE JOHNSON Approved Judgment Hegab v Spectator narrative” by Charlotte Littlewood, published by the Henry Jackson Society, and “Cyber Social Swarming Precedes Real World Riots in Leicester: How Social Media became a Weapon for Violence” by Prasiddha Sudhakar, Alex Goldenberg and others, published by Rutgers University Center for Community Protection and Resilience. 40. In the supplementary written closing submissions for the claimant, those reports are criticised. It is not necessary to resolve those criticisms. That is because I agree with a further submission that is advanced on behalf of the claimant that it would not be right to treat “the Leicester unrest” as a single event with an assumed unitary cause. It comprised a series of events which may have had different causes or a different mix of contributing causes. 41. Notwithstanding the evidence produced by the claimant (I acknowledge that there are many references to “the Hindutva” in contemporaneous reports), it is not necessary, or possible, in this litigation to resolve questions as to the (possibly complex) causes of the violence. That requires an altogether different form of enquiry. For the same reasons, it is not necessary to determine whether, or the extent to which, the Hindutva played a role in the unrest. The focus of this case is whether the truth defence is made out. That does not depend on the precise causes of the violence, but on whether the defamatory imputation conveyed by the article is substantially true. The claimant’s evidence 42. The claimant is highly educated. He has degrees in Islamic studies, politics, history and theology. He is completing a doctorate in philosophy of religion. He has undergone 11 years of Islamic training; he has memorised the Quran. He is fluent in classical Arabic and in Egyptian Dialectical. He has published widely. He has multiple successful social media channels, most prominently YouTube on which he has hundreds of thousands of followers, and his material has been viewed tens of millions of times. He has monetised his output to secure an income. He is an accomplished public speaker and debater. He is tall and has an imposing physical presence. 43. As a witness he was combative and constantly argumentative. He sought, at every turn, to debate with counsel, responding to questions with (rhetorical) questions of his own, arguing his case rather than giving straightforward responses, and denigrating the character of the second defendant to whom he bears palpable personal animosity. I am satisfied that he lied on significant issues, with the consequence that his evidence, overall, is worthless. Specifically, I am satisfied that he lied in respect of the event at Golders Green, the counter-protest at the rally for Israel, the seminar on Hinduism at the Sapience Institute, his repudiation of vigilantism, his evidence as to the involvement of the Hindutva, his evidence about his choice of language in his speech, and his evidence in support of his claim for financial losses. I address each in turn. 44. Golders Green: The video shows that the claimant was using the van as a prop. When this was put to him, he denied it: “how could I use it? It’s not mine… it’s not my van; it’s nothing to do with me... I didn’t even know where that van came from.” Later he said (in respect of the images displayed on the van) “I don’t know anything about what is going on the van.” The denial that he was using the van as a prop, and his assertion that the van had nothing to do with him, was untrue. The claimant was