to attract and approaching its gist with that degree of attention to detail in mind. A Muslim audience is always likely to be attentive to what a Chief Imam says on matters of guidance; but there is likely to be a qualitative difference between (a) an annual dinner, (b) a session like the Deviant Groups whose purpose was “primarily educational” and where those attending can be assumed to have come because they had a particular interest in the subject, (c) a religious lecture and (d) those taking the trouble to listen to or watch the Claimant’s speeches on the web or YouTube. An audience is also likely to be particularly attentive to answers given to questions from fellow members of the audience. (4) Principle (4) is applicable: the issue is what meaning his words in their proper context conveyed, not what the Claimant intended to say. The test of meaning is objective. The clearer the message, the less likely it becomes that the Claimant did not intend it. (5) Principle (5) (‘the speech must be read as whole’) is applicable to the second exercise but in a more nuanced or flexible way. The principle has particular utility in the first exercise in order to ensure that ‘bane and antidote’ are taken together. But because the Court is not searching for a ‘single’ meaning, the principle is less efficacious in the second exercise. The Court is under no rigid obligation to approach the speech as a whole. However, if the Claimant makes an assertion in one passage and clearly qualifies it in another, the qualification would clearly be relevant and has to be taken into account, judging the relative strength of the primary message compared with qualification. (6) Principle (6) is relevant. Audiences vary. An ordinary viewer of a BBC television programme will be different from those attending an educational or religious lecture. (7) Principle (7) is relevant (see the principle of reasonableness (1) above). (8) Principle (8) is primarily applicable to the first exercise. However, in the second exercise, the Court could when considering the range of reasonable meanings of a particular passage, decide that any particular passage bears a clear meaning which all or almost all present would draw. But ultimately it must be borne in mind that the second exercise is concerned with determining whether the sting is ‘substantially true’. (3) Legal test for defence of justification 63. The BBC broadcast in question predated the coming into force of the Defamation Act 2013; accordingly, this case is governed by the Common Law and the Defamation Act 1952. 64. The legal test for a defence of justification is whether the defendant can prove that the allegation made in the words complained of is “substantially true” (see Rothschild v Associated Newspapers [2013] EMLR 18 at [24]-[26]). Section s.2(1) of the 2013 Act is to the same effect. 65. It is the substance of the allegation which matters. As Eady J. emphasised in Turcu v. 16