IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE Claim No. HQ17M02177 QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION MEDIA AND COMMUNICATIONS LIST BETWEEN: MOHAMMED DAHLAN Claimant and (1) M.E.E LIMITED (2) DAVID HEARST Defendants ________________________________ AMENDED DEFENCE OF BOTH DEFENDANTS CPR 16 PD 1.4 SHORT SUMMARY ________________________________ 1. It is denied that the words complained of are actionable, for the following reasons: 1.1. The issues raised by the claim, specifically the lawfulness and propriety of the alleged activities of the Claimant on behalf of the UAE in the conduct of its foreign affairs, are beyond the subject matter jurisdiction of this Court. 1.2. The words complained of are not defamatory of the Claimant as there are no common standards of society generally (either within England and Wales or across the Additional Jurisdictions specified in the Amended Particulars of Claim) by which the alleged activities of the Claimant on behalf of the UAE in the conduct of its foreign affairs can be judged by this Court. 1.3. The words complained of are not defamatory of the Claimant, alternatively have caused no serious harm to his reputation, in light of his pre-existing reputation within the jurisdiction and within the Additional Jurisdictions specified in the Amended Particulars of Claim, which associates him with corruption, torture and human rights abuses, the use of force for political ends and opposing, undermining and supporting the overthrow by force of democratic governments in the Middle East and North Africa on behalf of the UAE. 1.4. The words complained of do not bear the meanings relied on by the Claimant. The natural and ordinary meaning relied on is not found in the words complained of. The innuendo meaning relied on does not follow from the special knowledge specified, 1 knowledge which in any event the ordinary reader of the words complained of would not possess. 2. The Defendants rely on the defence of publication on a matter of public interest pursuant to the Defamation Act 2013 section 4. The main aspects of that defence are as follows: 2.1. The subject matter of the words complained of is of the highest public interest in England and Wales and in the Additional Jurisdictions, in light of the life and work of the Claimant, his long-standing significant and controversial role within the politics of the Middle East and North Africa, and the ongoing struggle for power within the region, and in the Palestinian Territories, between countries, groups and interests broadly supportive of the popular democratic movements of the Arab Spring, and those opposed. 2.2. The Second Defendant, who wrote the words complained of, reasonably believed that their publication was in the public interest. 2.2.1. The Second Defendant knew of and believed in the high public interest in the subject matter of the words complained of, gaining such knowledge and belief from a long career as a journalist and many years covering the Middle East and North Africa. 2.2.2. The information in the words complained of was based on information provided by a number of confidential sources which the Second Defendant reasonably believed to be credible, reliable and accurate. 2.2.3. The credibility, reliability and importance of the information provided to the Second Defendant by his sources was supported in his mind by his knowledge and belief concerning the activities of the Claimant throughout his life, and in particular in more recent years his activity on behalf of the UAE in opposing and providing financial and military support to those opposing popular democratic and/or Islamist movements in the region. 2.2.4. A pre-publication approach to the Claimant was not necessary or appropriate, in light of the information provided to the Second Defendant by his sources and its provenance, in circumstances where previous requests 2 to the Claimant for comment by the First Defendant had gone unanswered and where the Claimant does not, to the knowledge and belief of the Second Defendant, respond in real time to media inquiries. The Defendants will rely also on the fact that, shortly after his first complaint through his solicitors, they offered to publish a statement by way of response or rebuttal from the Claimant along with the words complained of. That offer, which remains open, was rejected out of hand by the Claimant. Further, when the Defendants approached the Claimant in October 2017 in relation to a proposed story concerning an investigation into his conduct by the International Criminal Court, he declined to respond to the substance of the story, merely instructing his solicitors to state that the allegations were politically motivated. 3. In relation to the claim for an injunction to restrain continued publication of the words complained of, the Defendants rely on further information and knowledge obtained by the Second Defendant since the date of first publication, which further supports his reasonable belief in the public interest in the continued publication of the words complained of. 4. If necessary the Defendants will rely in mitigation and/or extinction of damages on the following: 4.1. The Claimant’s general bad reputation in England and Wales and in the Additional Jurisdictions in relevant sectors of his life. 4.2. Lack of any embarrassment or distress caused to the Claimant by the words complained of, given that he has publicly expressed pride in the role he played in supporting a military coup against elected President Morsi of Egypt, given that he has publicly ascribed to the government of President Erdogan in Turkey the financing and arming of ISIS, and given that he has publicly questioned whether there would be anything wrong with the UAE providing arms to a warring faction in Libya. 4.3. The Claimant’s delay in complaining about the words complained of and in issuing proceedings. 3 4.4. Such of the facts pleaded in support of the public interest defence which are proved at trial. ADRIENNE PAGE QC JACOB DEAN ADRIENNE PAGE QC JACOB DEAN The Defenda t believe that the facts stated in this Defence are true. Signed Served this 1 b day of September by Carter-Ruck of 6 St Andrew Street, London, EC4A 3AE. Solicitors for the Defendants 4 Amended Defence under CPR 17.1(2)(a) dated 10 September 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE Claim No. HQ17M02177 QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION MEDIA AND COMMUNICATIONS LIST BETWEEN: MOHAMMED DAHLAN Claimant and (1) M.E.E LIMITED (2) DAVID HEARST Defendants _________________________________________ AMENDED DEFENCE OF BOTH DEFENDANTS _________________________________________ 1. References to paragraph numbers in this Amended Defence are references to paragraphs of the Amended Particulars of Claim, unless otherwise stated or apparent from the context. The Claimant and what he is known for within the relevant jurisdictions 2. The first sentence of paragraph 1 is not admitted and the Claimant is required to prove the same, save that: 2.1. it is admitted and averred that the Claimant is and has been deeply politically engaged in many aspects of the politics of the Middle East (which term when used in this document includes North Africa), by no means confined to the Palestinian territories, from which the Claimant is exiled; 2.2. it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to style himself as a philanthropist. If and insofar as the Claimant has been associated with the donation of money to promote the welfare of others, it is denied that it was his money (rather than that of the UAE or other regional power brokers) or that his motives were other than to promote his own political ambitions, for instance, in Gaza. 3. If and insofar (which, as stated in 2 above is not admitted or denied) the Claimant correctly self-styles as a businessman and a philanthropist, it is denied that his activities 1 in those areas are carried out in thise jurisdiction, and not admitted that such activities are carried out in any of the three additional jurisdictions which are referred to in the amendments to the Particulars of Claim made on 3 August 2018 (“the Additional Jurisdictions”). It is or therefore denied that his claim for damages in paragraph 8 in respect of his ability to continue those activities in this jurisdiction is permissible and not admitted in relation to the Additional Jurisdictions. 4. As for the second sentence of paragraph 1: it is admitted and averred that the Claimant is “well known” to the readers of Middle East Eye within this jurisdiction and within the Additional Jurisdictions, most or all of whom are well-versed and interested in Middle East affairs, however it is denied that “former leader of Fatah in Gaza” and “an important figure in Palestinian politics” represents a full, fair or accurate description of what the Claimant is “well known” for in the eyes of that readership. 5. On the contrary, for all or the majority of the readership of Middle East Eye the Claimant is “well known” to them primarily for all or some of the following: 5.1. being linked to a brutal regime which perpetrated torture and human rights abuses during his time as chief of the Palestinian Preventive Security Service in Gaza; 5.2. being widely considered to have acquired great wealth through corruption, including during his time in leadership roles in Fatah in Gaza, culminating in his conviction in absentia on corruption charges by a Palestinian Court in December 2016; 5.3. his involvement in attempts by Fatah, with American backing, to overthrow the elected Hamas government in Gaza in 2007, prompting the civil war between Hamas and Fatah in which Fatah were driven from Gaza; 5.4.