Case Overview
This case involved defamation and harassment between two cousins: Sayed Zulfikar Abbas Bukhari (Claimant) and Syed Tauqeer Bukhari (Defendant). Between September 2019 and March 2020, the defendant posted 249 tweets (some including videos) accusing his cousin, a Dubai businessman and former Pakistani minister, as well as the claimant’s father, of corruption, theft, fraud, and intimidation.
The defendant mentioned the claimant in tweets, tagging journalists and media outlets for more attention and exposure. He claimed that because he was seeking justice for his family, and considering the claimant’s political standing and public interest, his actions were reasonable and justified and therefore, not harassment.
The claimant alleged that 40 of these tweets were libelous and that the entire Twitter (now X) campaign constituted harassment under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 (PfHA). He claimed that the tweets had caused distress and reputational damage especially within the UK Pakistani Diaspora.
Procedural Background
According to the preliminary rulings, Murray J decided that 40 tweets were defamatory. Judgments by Steyn J and Julian Knowles J dismissed the defence of truth, public interest, and crime prevention because the defendant’s proposed defence was not sufficiently detailed.
Therefore, the issues at trial were whether:
- The defamatory tweets caused “serious harm” under s1(1) Defamation Act 2013;
- The entire course of conduct constituted harassment; whether he knew or ought to have known that was the case; and if so, whether it was reasonable under PfHA.
Judgment
Libel
The Court applied the case of Lachaux v Independent [2020], focusing on the publications in England and Wales that have caused serious harm to the claimant. The Court accepted the claimant had a good reputation and that the defamatory allegations were serious, with many being classified as very serious.
However, only eight publications – 5 tweets and 3 videos, were held to have crossed the “serious harm” threshold. These publications had detailed allegations, high engagement and/or substantial views, while the remaining tweets were often repetitive and lacked adequate and clear UK readership data.
As a result, £40,000 was awarded to the claimant in damages.
Harassment
The Court had to address the jurisdictional issues as the claimant’s presence in the UK was temporary and intermittent. Applying the case of Shakil-Ur-Rahman v ARY Network Ltd and another [2016] EWHC 3110 (QB), the Court held that harassment requires:
- Acts within the jurisdiction; and
- That the claimant experienced the impact of being harassed in England and Wales before the tort was completed.
Even though most of the tweets were read overseas, the Court was satisfied that all the tweets and videos made up the course of conduct, and there was no need to consider “whether the tweets published while the Claimant was here, looked at in isolation, add up themselves to a course (or courses) of conduct.” The campaign had all the hallmarks of a course of conduct amounting to harassment because it was persistent, targeted, and repetitive, and was calculated to cause alarm or distress to the claimant.
The court concluded that the victim did not need to only experience the harassment in this jurisdiction, stating, “Experiencing the effects of the course of conduct while in England and Wales will suffice even if they were also experienced elsewhere at other times”. Ultimately, the Judge was satisfied that the claimant experienced sufficient harassment, since the tweets posted in England and Wales made the harassment he was already dealing with worse.
Because he could have kept his complaints private, the defendant’s reasonableness defence failed and the claimant was awarded £3,000, limited to the distress experience in England.
Key Takeaways
Harassment under the PfHA requires that the claimant experience the harassment within England and Wales, even if the conduct happened online or overseas. However, Bukhari shows that “impact of harassment within England” can be intermittent and still sufficient. Furthermore, the significance of repeated social media accusations could diminish, as not every post will reach the level of serious harm.
Contact Us
If you are facing harassment, Nath Solicitors is here to support you. With over 30 years of expertise, we specialise in providing swift, expert resolution to distressing situations. Our experienced team of solicitors has a meticulous eye for detail, ensuring that every aspect of your case is thoroughly examined and presented.
Contact our highly experienced team at Nath Solicitors today to discuss your case and explore your options. Call us on 020 3983 8278 or reach out to us online.