A claimant who was 'combative and constantly argumentative' in the witness box has lost his libel claim against a weekly magazine after the judge found his evidence 'worthless'.
In Hegab v Spectator, Mr Justice Johnson, sitting in the Media and Communications List, found that the meaning of a 2022 article by writer Douglas Murray - that YouTube influencer Mohammed Hegab was a 'street agitator' who had 'whipped up a mob on London’s streets' and 'exacerbated frayed tensions' between Muslim and Hindu communities in Leicester - to be defamatory but 'substantially true'.
In any case, Hegab had failed to show he had suffered serious harm as a result of the article. Evidence produced of withdrawal of funding had the 'appearance of being contrived for the purpose of these proceedings', the judge said. According to the judgment, one witness called to support Hegab’s claims had previously been convicted of dishonesty for staging road traffic accidents to secure compensation.
Meanwhile, material published by Hegab himself to ‘many more social media followers than the Spectator has subscribers… is at least as damaging to him as the article.’
On Hegab’s conduct in court, the judge described his behaviour as 'combative and constantly argumentative. I am satisfied that he lied on significant issues, with the consequence that his evidence, overall, is worthless.'
A claim under the Data Protection Act 2018 was also dismissed on the ground that the Spectator article was not materially inaccurate.
Mark Henderson, instructed by Saracens Solicitors, appeared for Hegab; Greg Callus and Hector Penny, instructed by RPC, for The Spectator (1828) Limited and William Bennett KC, instructed by Patron Law, for Douglas Murray.
