November 20, 2017

The claimant, Dr Salman Butt, was the Chief Editor of Islam 21C, a publicly accessible website which described itself as “articulating Islam in the 21^st Century”. Dr Butt described himself as holding conservative, but not extremist, religious views. He also said that he had spoken at a number of universities at the invitation of student Islamic societies.

A press release, entitled “PM’s Extremism Taskforce: tackling extremism in universities and colleges top of the agenda”, issued by the Government in 2015, announced the coming into force of the revised “Prevent Duty Guidance” entitled “A new duty to stop extremists radicalising students on campuses….”.

In the “Notes to Editors” at the end of the press release, Dr Butt was listed as one of six people who had spoken at universities and who were “on record as expressing views contrary to British values”.

Dr Butt issued various claims against the Secretary of State for the Home Department, including a claim in defamation. He argued that the natural and ordinary meaning of the words in the press release meant and were understood to mean that he was “an extremist hate speaker who legitimises terrorism, is likely to radicalise students and from whose poisonous and pernicious influence students should be protected”.

The Secretary of State denied the claim and, in the alternative, relied on the defence of “honest opinion” under s 3 of the Defamation Act 2013.

Mr Justice Nichols agreed with Dr Butt, finding that, reading the press release as a whole, there was an obvious link between the words in the press release, which spoke of a number of events having been held at campuses in the UK featuring hate speakers, and the list of six speakers in the “Notes to Editors”. The press release as a whole characterised Dr Butt as a hate speaker and an extremist, Nichols J said.

However, Nichols J also found that the words complained of were opinion, not fact. Essentially, they amounted to an opinion on the views of Dr Butt, which were “on record”, i.e. were in the public domain.

Finally, Nichols J found that the press release as a whole indicated in general terms the basis of the opinion and s 3(3) of the 2015 was therefore satisfied. It was not necessary for the defendant to have specified the foundation for his comment with such clarity that the reader could make his own assessment of the comment’s validity, Nichols J said. It was sufficient if he indicated the subject matter on which he was commenting. In Nichol J’s view, the press release did that. (Dr Salman Butt v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2017] EWHC 2619 (QB) (20 October 2017) — to read the judgment in full, click here).