Asghar & Anor v Ahmad & Ors

Two of the mosques currently serving the Muslim community in Newport, Gwent, are known as the Al-Noor Mosque and the Jamia Mosque. The Al-Noor Mosque was the first mosque to be established in Newport in the early 1970s and its premises are in Harrow Road. By the early 1980s the Muslim population in Newport had grown to the extent that another mosque was required and the Jamia Mosque was established which has premises in Commercial Road.

For a number of years the mosques have been jointly managed by various individuals, including Abdul Rehman Mujahid (“the 2^nd claimant”). These individuals have been selected rather than elected to their management roles, and more recently there has been a campaign by certain members of the congregations of these mosques for there to be democratic elections to these posts, together with more transparency and accountability in their management.

The first four defendants are all supporters of this campaign, which has styled itself as “The Sunni Muslim Welfare Association of Newport, S. Wales” (“the association”), and Manzoor Ahmad, (“the 1^st defendant”), is the chairman of its interim committee.

On 15^th September 2011 a meeting took place between representatives of the opposing sides in the dispute in order to see whether their differences could be resolved by way of mediation. The individual selected by the parties to be the mediator was Mohammed Asghar, (“the 1^st claimant”), who is a member of the Welsh Assembly. The mediation itself appears to have been successful, in that both sides were content with its outcome. Unfortunately however, a dispute has arisen in relation to its implementation, which remains unresolved.

In early 2012 a number of documents were published which the 1^st and 2^nd claimants contend are defamatory of them. They allege that the defendants are responsible for these publications; a matter which is denied by the defendants. As a result the claimants have brought an action for defamation against the defendants, which is opposed by each of them.

The original mosque in Newport comprised a converted garage at the rear of two properties in Harrow Road. It seems likely that the funding for the mosque came from donations within the local Muslim community, and by the early 1970s its management had become the responsibility of a small group of volunteers.

In 1976 the 2^nd claimant entered the United Kingdom from Pakistan, settled in Newport and soon became one of those responsible for the management of the mosque.

In about 1979 the original mosque became known as the Al-Noor Mosque and the growing local Muslim community decided that there was a need to provide a second mosque in the Pill area, which was to be known as the Jamia Hanfia Rizvia Mosque. A site for the new mosque at 183 – 186, Commercial Road, Newport, was chosen and subsequently purchased.

The establishment of the new mosque appears to have caused some controversy within certain sections of the local Muslim community, and two bodies were formed. One was the trustees, which would hold the ownership of the new mosque on behalf of the local community, whilst the other was the management committee, which was at that stage responsible for the initial building of the new mosque and the raising of funds for that purpose.

The evidence of Sultan Ahmed suggests that the purchase price for the site of the new mosque was £8,000.00, which was raised from donations by a number of individuals, some of whom, including the 2^nd claimant, had been responsible for establishing an organisation known as Anjuman Raza-E-Mustafa; a recently established organisation which he understood was to benefit the local Muslim community by organising its religious and educational services. The 2^nd claimant suggests that this organisation was wholly responsible for funding the purchase of the site.

However, the contemporary documentary evidence suggests that the site was purchased in 1982 at a purchase price of £4,500.00, and its ownership was to be held by the trustees of a charity known as the Jamia Hanfia Rizvia Mosque. These being seven named individuals, most of whom do not appear to have contributed to the initial purchase price of the site. In his evidence the 2^nd defendant states that he is currently one of the trustees of the mosque.

The subsequent funding of the building of the new mosque came from a variety of sources, including the Saudi Embassy, the Pakistan High Commission and the Local Authority, together with contributions from the local and other Muslim communities.

In due course a written constitution was established which provided for the governance of the new mosque and which, inter alia, required periodic elections to the management committee, which was also to be responsible for the day to day operation of the mosque. Although there is contemporaneous documentary evidence that in about 1994 an election took place, for reasons which are not entirely clear, there is no evidence that more recent elections have been held, such that the membership of the management committee has been by way of selection rather than election.

The building of the new mosque was not completed until about 2009/10, and in the intervening period there have been a number of disputes concerning the management of the two mosques. Contemporary documentation suggests that in 2002 there was a dispute about the holding of elections, and in 2007 there was a dispute between two committees which are described as the “Action” Committee and the “Unelected” Committee respectively; a member of the latter being the 2^nd claimant. It is unclear as to whether, and if so how, these earlier disputes were resolved.

More recently, in 2011, a number of documents have come into the possession of certain members of the local Muslim community, including some of the defendants. These documents include: a transfer of whole of registered title from the Land Registry, showing that as from 31^st January 2003 the 2^nd claimant and two others became the registered proprietors of the Al-Noor mosque as trustees for the benefit of the Newport mosque; an official copy of register of title from the Land Registry showing that as from 30^th November 2009 the 2^nd claimant and four others became the registered proprietors of land to the east side of Mountjoy Road, situated immediately behind the Jamia Hanfia Rizvia mosque, as trustees of the charity known as the Jamia Hanfia Rizvia; a deed of declaration of charitable trust in relation to the “Anjuma Raza-E-Mustafa Trust UK” dated 1^st December 2010, whereby the 2^nd claimant and 4 others became its trustees. The trust is described as running the Al-Noor mosque; a deed of declaration of charitable trust in relation to the “Jamia Hanfia Rizvia Mosque Trust UK” dated 1^st December 2010, whereby the 2^nd claimant and 4 others became its trustees.

It is the contention of the first four defendants that the discovery of these documents caused their pre-existing concerns about the lack of democracy and transparency in relation to the governance of both of the mosques to be raised, to the extent that they became concerned that the 2^nd claimant was seeking to personally benefit from the manner in which the mosques’ assets were held by him and others.

As a result of these concerns, on 15^th August 2011, the 1^st, 3^rd and 4^th defendants, together with others from the mosques’ congregations, sought some initial advice from charity lawyers, Geldards LLP.

Later that day a meeting took place at the Jamia mosque when around 80 – 100 individuals were in attendance. It would appear that despite the presence of the 2^nd claimant, matters were not resolved. Therefore once he had left the meeting those in attendance decided that an interim committee should be formed to govern the mosques until elections could be organised for the selection of a management committee in accordance with the original written constitution. The 1^st defendant was chosen as the chairman of the interim committee and the association comprised its supporters.

Thereafter a number of meetings took place, despite which the issues between the parties remained unresolved. Some of the concerns and requests of the association being encapsulated in a number of documents provided by the association to the 2^nd claimant.

It was against this background that it was decided to submit the parties’ differences to mediation and the 1^st claimant, as a well known public figure and member of the Welsh Assembly, was selected to be the mediator. The mediation took place on 15^th September 2011 and a number of persons were in attendance, including the 1^st, 2^nd and 3^rd defendants and the 2^nd claimant. At the conclusion of the mediation both sides of the dispute suggest that it had been a success, with an amicable agreement having been reached as to the future ownership and governance of the mosques. Equally however, each side contend that the other was responsible for the breakdown in the implementation of that agreement, which it contends is the reason for the lack of resolution of those issues. Although it is apparent how the 2^nd defendant viewed the breakdown of the mediation from his letter to the 1^st claimant dated 10^th October 2011, the details of the views of the claimants have remained unclear.

Thereafter there was a period of quiescence, which may reflect such efforts as were being made by the parties to implement the terms of the mediated agreement. However by December 2011 matters were reaching a head, and it is alleged by the defendants that two events took place which prompted the 1^st defendant on behalf of the association’s interim committee to apply to the Newport County Court for what was described as an “anti social behaviour order injunction” against both the 1^st and 2^nd claimants. Both of the events are alleged to have taken place at the Jamia Mosque: the first involving the 1^st claimant on 9^th December 2011; and the second involving the 2^nd claimant on the 16^th December 2011. It is alleged that the former comprised the 1^st claimant providing inaccurate information during the course of a speech which could have caused sectional violence within the Muslim congregation. It is alleged that the latter comprised the 2^nd claimant disrupting a meeting being addressed by the 1^st defendant, by snatching his microphone and thereafter removing a mobile phone from a member of the congregation.

The written application for the injunction was dated 18^th December 2011 and was supported by witness statements made by the 1^st and 2^nd defendants. The hearing of the application initially took place on 20^th December 2011 when the 4^th defendant conducted the hearing on behalf of the association’s interim committee. There was no attendance by either of the claimants, although it was recorded in the ensuing order that the application and witness statements had been provided to the claimants on the previous day. The order made by the court was to the effect that the application was adjourned until 22^nd December 2011, but that in the interim both of the claimants were restrained from interfering with the peaceful offering of prayers at either of the mosques.

Once in possession of the order a number of people, including the 1^st and 4^th defendants, visited the offices of the Western Mail newspaper and provided a copy of it to its chief reporter, Martin Shipton. As a result of which on 22^nd December 2011 the newspaper printed an article about the matter, with the headline, “Judge to rule on mosque ban on Tory AM.”

On 20^th December 2011 the 1^st defendant wrote to both of the claimants informing them of the court order and the date of the adjourned hearing. This letter suggested that the original application had been provided to the claimants on 16^th December 2011. Although I note that a letter was sent by the 1^st defendant to the 1^st claimant dated 16^th December 2011, it made no mention of any application for an injunction.

The adjourned hearing took place on 22^nd December 2011. By then, a number of other witness statements had been provided on behalf of the association, including those from the 3^rd and 4^th defendants. The parties compromised the adjourned application on a basis which appears to have involved the cessation of the interim injunction, the withdrawal of the application, the provision of mutual undertakings on behalf of the association and the 2^nd claimant not to interfere with the conduct of religious worship in the mosques and to refrain from discussing the dispute concerning their ownership and management in the mosques.

On 16^th December 2011, the 1^st defendant on behalf of himself and the four other members of the association’s interim committee, issued a notice to the congregations of the two mosques to the effect that the interim committee would be assuming responsibility for the welfare of the two mosques in place of the 2^nd claimant and Arshad Rahman, who were the chairman and secretary of both the Anjuma Raza-E-Mustafa Trust UK and the Jamia Hanfia Rizvia Mosque Trust UK. The notice also informed the congregations of the intention of the interim committee to hold elections within the next 60 days for the positions of trustees and members of the management committee of the two mosques.

Thereafter a written notice of a meeting was issued by the 1^st defendant, as chairman of the association’s interim committee, which was placed in the mosques and a number of other locations in Newport.

On 8^th January 2012 the meeting took place at the Newport Leisure Centre with those sitting on the platform, with the exception of the 3^rd defendant and one other, compromising members of the association’s interim committee. There are varying estimates of the number of those who were present in the audience ranging between 50 and 200 individuals. It is accepted that the 4^th defendant was present in the audience and it appears that the 5^th defendant was also present.

At the commencement of the meeting the 3^rd defendant conducted prayers and made some introductions. Thereafter the 1^st defendant made an oral presentation to the audience supplemented by reference to documents which were electronically screened. The 1^st defendant focussed on the issues of apparent concern relating to the ownership of the two mosques. He described the history of the two mosques and the recent discovery of the documents concerning the individuals in whose names their ownership subsists, together with the establishment of the related charitable trusts. He mentioned the lack of accountability presently being provided in regard to the management of the mosques and stated the interim committee’s intention to be caretakers until elections to the positions of trustees and membership of the management committee could take place, which would thereafter provide transparent and accountable ownership and governance of the mosques.

At the meeting, copies of a number of documents were available for members of the audience. Two of these documents are uncontroversial, namely an application form to join the association, and a petition expressing its concerns. However, in addition to these documents, copies of a document headed “Jamia & Al-Noor Mosques Newport Update” (“the update”) appear to have been placed on the chairs provided for the audience prior to the commencement of the meeting. The update contains much of what the 1^st defendant mentioned in his oral presentation to the meeting, and in addition the reasons why injunctive proceedings were taken against the 1^st and 2^nd claimants. The update is the first of the documents which form the basis of the defamation claim by the claimants against the defendants, who all deny being responsible for its publication.

On 18^th January 2012 an article was published in an Urdu language newspaper called “Nawa-i-Jang”. This is a newspaper which is not only provided in hard copy, but is also published on its website and is therefore available around the world. Indeed it claims to have the largest Urdu readership in the United Kingdom. The article repeated much of the substance of the matters contained in the update, but also alleged fraudulent conduct by each of the claimants in other contexts. As a result the claimants issued proceedings for defamation in the High Court under claim number 2CF93205, against both the proprietor of the newspaper, Nawaijang UK Limited, and two of those alleged to be responsible for its editorial, Muhammad Asif Saleem and Nadia Tuffail. In the course of the litigation the court struck out the parties’ defences for non-compliance with an order to amend in accordance with the rules, and entered judgement for the 1^st and 2^nd claimants. Subsequently, in a judgment handed down on 9^th January 2014, His Honour Judge Milwyn Jarman QC awarded each of the claimants damages in the sum of £45,000.00.

Later on in January 2012, the 1^st, 3^rd and 4^th defendants went to the police and spoke with Superintendent Johnson about their concerns in relation to the ownership of the two mosques. It is alleged by the claimants that the officer was provided with a bundle of documents by the defendants who were present at the meeting.

On 26^th January 2012, a meeting took place with Andrew Davies AM, the leader of the Conservative group in the Welsh Assembly. There were a number of persons present including the 1^st, 3^rd and 4^th defendants. Initially the 1^st defendant spoke at the meeting until the 4^th defendant arrived, who thereafter took over the conduct of the meeting. It is alleged by the claimants that during the course of this meeting the 4^th defendant provided Mr Davies with a dossier of documents (“the dossier”) which he retained and subsequently provided to the 1^st claimant.

The claimants allege that on 10^th February 2012 they subsequently spoke with a police officer known as Mike Davies about their concerns in relation to the article in the Nawa-i-Jang newspaper, and he showed them the bundle of documents which had been provided to Superintendent Johnson, which the 1^st claimant recognised as containing copies of the same documents which had been provided in the dossier to Andrew Davies.

The contents of the dossier are the second set of documents which form the basis of the defamation claim by the claimants against the defendants, who deny being responsible for their publication. The documents contained in the dossier include not only the original article in the Nawa-i-Jang newspaper, but a number of documents from the injunction proceedings, newspaper articles from the Western Mail, photographs and correspondence which in the main appears to emanate from the interim committee.

Subsequently the claimants have discovered that a website, for which the 5^th defendant is alleged to be responsible, has posted a number of documents on it, including the original Nawa-i-Jang newspaper article and correspondence emanating from the interim committee. The address of the website is http://madinamosquecardiff.org.uk/. and the documents posted on it (“the website”) are the third set of documents which form the basis of the defamation claim by the claimants against the defendants, who deny being responsible for their publication.

On 10^th February 2012 Messrs Syeds, solicitors, on behalf of the 2^nd claimant and others, wrote to the 1^st defendant complaining about the allegations made in some of these documents. On 9^th March 2012 a further similar letter was sent by Messrs Syeds, on behalf of the 1^st claimant, to the 1^st defendant.

It is unclear as to what, if any, response was made to this correspondence, as by 17^th April 2012 Morgan Cole LLP, on behalf of the trustees of the Jamia Hanfia Rizvia Mosque, was writing to the 2^nd claimant and others requesting, inter alia, that the management of the Jamia Mosque be transferred to the association’s interim committee, together with the legal title to the land on Mountjoy Road.

Principal Law Limited, solicitors, appear to have been instructed on behalf of the 2^nd claimant and the management committee of the Jamia Hanfia Rizvia mosque, as on 5^th July 2012 it wrote contesting the trustees’ claims.

This correspondence culminated in a letter from Morgan Cole LLP dated 5^th September 2012 intimating the commencement of legal action to resolve the legal issues concerning the ownership and management of the Jamia Mosque.

There are no details of any further relevant correspondence prior to the issue of the current proceedings for defamation by the claimants against the defendants on 14^th December 2012.

The particulars of claim assert that the 1^st, 2^nd and 3^rd defendants are all members of the association’s interim committee and that the 4^th and 5^th defendants have worked together with the remaining defendants in their campaign to defame the claimants.

In relation to the update it is alleged that it was co-authored by the defendants and distributed by them throughout the Muslim community in Newport and Cardiff. It is asserted that it defamed the claimants because, inter alia, it falsely alleged that the 2^nd claimant had obtained mosque property for his own personal benefit and knowingly described the trusts as being charitable in nature when they were for his own personal benefit. It is asserted that the 1^st claimant is falsely alleged to have knowingly supported the 2^nd claimant in these endeavours.

In relation to the dossier, it is alleged that it was co-authored by the defendants and published by them throughout the Muslim community of Newport and Cardiff, because their modus operandi was to spread false claims as widely as possible amongst the communities in order to bolster their position and weaken that of the claimants in regard to the control of the two mosques. In particular, they published the dossier to Mohammed Tariq, Andrew Davies AM and others named in the dossier. It is asserted that the documents in the dossier defamed the claimants because, inter alia, the copy of the Nawa-i-Jang which it contained: falsely alleged that the 2^nd claimant had obtained mosque property for his own personal benefit and the 1^st claimant had knowingly supported the 2^nd claimant’s endeavours; falsely alleged that the 2^nd claimant sought to defraud an insurer of millions of pounds, that he was strongly believed to have been knowingly involved in passing counterfeit money, and knowingly using the mosque trust to obtain false work permits; falsely alleged that the 1^st Claimant was banned from entering the mosque because he had breached the peace, that he sought to promote sectionalism for his own political benefit, that he was knowingly involved in financial scandals by receiving corrupt payments and money laundering, and the Newport Magistrates’ Court had found that he was a liar. It is also asserted that another document entitled, “Three individuals put mosque property into own names as proprietors/owners” defamed the claimants because it falsely alleged, inter alia, that it is highly likely that a fraud has been committed by the 2^nd claimant as a result of the 2^nd claimant wrongfully placing the Al-Noor Mosque into his own name for his personal benefit, and the 1^st claimant has aided and abetted the 2^nd claimant in his endeavours, and has intimidated those who have sought to oppose the 2^nd claimant. Moreover, it falsely alleged that the 2^nd claimant had permitted the 1^st claimant to use the mosque for political purposes in return for a corrupt payment.

In relation to the website it is alleged that the 5^th defendant continued to publish copies of articles which defamed the claimants. These articles included the original Nawa-i-Jang article which contained the above mentioned false allegations, together with other pages on the website which expanded upon these allegations.

In the action the claimants sought both damages and injunctive relief against the defendants.

The 1^st and 2^nd defendants have been jointly represented throughout these proceedings. Their original defence comprised a denial of responsibility for the publication of any of the documents relied upon by the claimants. However on 16^th July 2014 His Honour Judge Seys Llewellyn QC granted them permission to amend their defence. In their Amended Defence they continue to deny responsibility for any of the publications, deny that the update or the documents in the dossier defamed the claimants, and in the alternative, assert that the circumstances of any such publication affords them the defence of qualified privilege.

Until recently the 3^rd defendant’s defence was limited to a denial of responsibility for the publication of any of the documents relied upon by the claimants. However the parties had for some time been on notice of the 3^rd defendant’s application to amend his defence to include the defence of fair comment, which was granted at the commencement of the trial.

The 4^th defendant has represented himself throughout these proceedings and his defence amounted to a denial of responsibility of any of the publications relied upon by the claimants. However, although not stated in terms, it appears to be implicit in his defence that he seeks to raise the defence of qualified privilege in relation to the contents of the dossier. His application to strike out the claims of the 1^st and 2^nd claimants was dismissed by His Honour Judge Seys Llewellyn QC on 16^th July 2014.

The 5^th Defendant has represented himself throughout these proceedings and denies liability, on the basis that, although he acknowledges having posted various documents on his website, he denies that he is thereby liable in defamation to the claimants.

On 18^th July 2014 His Honour Judge Seys Llewellyn QC heard an application to adjourn the trial which was listed to commence on 21^st July 2014. The adjournment was sought by the claimants on the basis that they had only recently obtained legal representation, and in any event the 2^nd claimant was unable to attend at court due to his ill health. It was noted by the judge that, throughout the majority of the course of the litigation, the claimants had been legally represented and that the 2^nd claimant had been present throughout the mediation process between 9.30am and 7.00pm on 9^th July 2014 and had attended a court hearing on 16^th July 2014. In these circumstances the court declined the application and the case was listed for hearing at Newport Crown Court on 22^nd July 2014.

On 22^nd July 2014 the 1^st claimant was in attendance and represented himself and the absent 2^nd claimant. The 1^st and 2^nd defendants were present and represented by Ms Kissin of counsel. The 3^rd defendant was present and represented by Mr Leathley of counsel. The 4^th defendant was present and represented himself. The 5^th Defendant was absent and unrepresented.

The 1^st claimant made a further application for an adjournment of the trial on the same grounds. I refused the application. In doing so I took into account, inter alia, that the notice of the trial date had been made known to the parties in March of 2014, and by May of 2014 it was known to the claimants that their legal representatives had ceased to act for them. Therefore the claimants had had more than sufficient time to have arranged for alternative legal representation, if they had chosen to do so. It was also clear that the 1^st claimant was an intelligent and articulate individual, well versed in public speaking, who would be properly equipped and able to conduct the proceedings on behalf of himself and the 2^nd claimant. In addition to the medical evidence which had already been considered by the judge on the previous occasion, namely medical reports dated 7^th and 14^th July 2014 to the effect that the 2^nd claimant suffered from a number of medical conditions including “end term renal failure” and concluded that “I would be most grateful if you could take his health into consideration”, I was also informed by the 2^nd claimant’s son, who was present in court, that although his father had been admitted to hospital on 21^st July 2014 due to high blood pressure, the 2^nd claimant had not been detained for any significant period and was presently at home.

In so far as the 5^th defendant was concerned, the evidence before the court was that he was unable to attend the trial because he had been recently admitted to hospital. It was apparent, from a preliminary reading of the written evidence in the case, that the only publications which concerned him were the documents on the website, and that the remaining defendants would only be responsible for any such publication on the basis of joint responsibility. In those circumstances it was decided that it would be disproportionate to adjourn the trial in relation to the remaining defendants in order to await his attendance; all parties agreeing that no prejudice would be caused by his absence from the present trial in relation to the issues concerning each of them. In these circumstances that part of the action by the claimants against the 5^th defendant was adjourned to be heard on a separate occasion.

On the second day of the hearing, 23^rd July 2014, the 2^nd claimant attended at court and has been present throughout the remainder of the trial; providing his evidence on 25^th July 2014. Having observed the 2^nd claimant throughout that and a more recent hearing, whilst I have no doubt he has some serious health issues, he gave no impression of being under any difficulty in participating fully in the court proceedings; to the extent that I have some misgivings as to the claimants’ motives in seeking the original adjournment.

On 28^th July 2014 Mr Bennett and Ms Grubb, of counsel, appeared in court for the first time in this trial on behalf of the claimants. They had very recently received instructions and have continued to represent the claimants during the remainder of the proceedings. Mr Bennett clearly had some familiarity with certain aspects of the matters emanating from the mosques’ dispute, as I note that he had represented the claimants at the hearing before His Honour Judge Milwyn Jarman QC on 9^th January 2014, when Mr Leathley represented the defendants in that case.

The claimants’ evidence was concluded on 28^th July 2014 and on the following day the Defendants’ evidence was due to commence.

On 29^th July 2014 the 4^th defendant was absent from court having provided two medical notes dated 25^th July 2014 and 28^th July 2014. The former stating that the 4^th defendant was suffering from “significant acute bronchitis” and was unfit for work for one week, whilst the latter stated that he was suffering from a chest infection and was unfit for work for the next 7 days. Understandably, due to the 4^th defendant’s attendance at court on both 25^th and 27^th July 2014, some of the parties were sceptical as to whether the evidence was sufficient to justify his absence from court. Although I shared some of those misgivings, it had been apparent during the course of the proceedings that although he had clearly been able to properly represent himself, he had been suffering from some degree of ill-health. In those circumstances I decided that the trial would have to be adjourned to allow for the attendance of the 4^th defendant. Regrettably, due to the various pre-arranged professional commitments, the trial was not able to be resumed until December 2014.

On 15^th December 2014 the part-heard trial resumed at Cardiff Civil Justice Centre; a date which had been notified to the parties at an early stage. The 4^th defendant was again not in attendance and only that morning had sent to the court attachments to an e-mail comprising medical evidence, which included two medical notes, the first dated 24^th November 2014 and the second dated 12^th December 2014. The former stating that he was unfit for work for a period of 4 weeks due to “anxiety with depression”, and the latter stating that he was unfit for work due to an “allergic reaction and stress reaction.” I heard submissions from the other parties as to the implications of the 4^th defendant’s absence from court, all of whom wished the trial to proceed in his absence. Indeed I was informed by Mr Leathley that he had very recently been contacted by the 4^th defendant who had informed him that he did not wish the trial to be adjourned, and was content for it to continue in his absence.

It appeared to me that the medical evidence was not in itself sufficient to justify the conclusion that the 4^th defendant was unable either to represent himself or to give oral evidence at the part-heard trial. Moreover, that if this had genuinely been the position, then the 4^th defendant would have made an application to the court at a far earlier stage of the proceedings, given both his knowledge of trial procedure and the length of time since his apparent medical condition had first arisen. After taking these matters into account, the history of the proceedings and his recent correspondence, I decided to proceed with the part-heard trial. In doing so I made it clear to the parties that, subject to the caveat that it had not been tested in cross-examination, I would take into account the written evidence of the 4^th defendant which was already before the court, and indeed the various written submissions which had been made by him in the course of the proceedings.

Over the course of the following few days the 4^th defendant provided to the court by way of e-mail attachments, not only further written evidence but also further written submissions including, in particular, a 226 paragraph document detailing his submissions upon the subject matter of the trial dated variously 15^th and 17^th December 2014, and a further written submission was provided to the court on 22^nd December 2014; all of which have been provided to the other parties.

Essentially, defamation is a tort involving strict liability. Therefore it is in general for the court, without reference to the intentions or knowledge of the publisher, to determine the meaning of the words which are the subject matter of the dispute, in order to determine whether they are defamatory of the particular claimant. In this regard the court should give the words their ordinary and natural meaning. (Charleston v News Group Newspapers[1995] 2 AC 65;Jeynes v News Magazines Limited[2008] EWCA Civ 130; Thornton v News Group Newspapers[2010] EWHC Civ 1414).

If those words are defamatory, then it will be necessary to determine whether the claimant has established to the civil standard whether the particular defendant whose case is being considered was responsible for the publication of the defamatory material. This may be on the basis that the defendant did so individually or on the basis of joint liability, intending that the defamatory material should be published. (Bataille v Newland[2002] EWHC 1692; Underhill v Corser[2010] EWHC 407; Dar Al Arkan Real Estate Development Co v Al Refai [2013] EWHC 1630).

However the law recognises that there are certain situations in which the publication of words by an individual, for which he would otherwise be liable for defamation, will be considered to have been privileged and thus provide the individual with a defence to an action for defamation. This privilege may arise in a variety of situations, albeit there is normally a requirement of reciprocity and mutuality between the interest of the individual in publishing the words to the other individual, and the interest of the other individual in receiving them. In the event that an individual is able to establish such a privilege, it may also extend to communications to individuals lacking such mutuality of interest, but only if the communication to them cannot reasonably be avoided, and is ancillary or incidental to the communication to those with such mutuality of interest. However, this privilege, if established, is not absolute, but conditional, and will be defeated upon proof of malice on behalf of the speaker. In this regard, malice will be established if it can be shown that the speaker had an improper motive for speaking the words, such as an overriding intention to harm the claimant, and such motivation may be able to be proved if it can be shown that the speaker did not believe the words he said to be true, or was reckless as to their truth; unless exceptionally he was under a duty to report them. However, a positive belief by the speaker in the truth of what he has said will normally be evidence that he has no such improper motive, unless he can be shown to have misused the occasion in which the words were spoken. (Adam v Ward[1917] AC 309; Kearns v General Council of the Bar[2003] EWCA Civ 331; Horrocks v Lowe[1975] AC 135).

In the event that a defendant is held liable for defamation, the purpose of damages is threefold: to compensate for damage to the claimant’s reputation; to vindicate the claimant’s good name; and to compensate for distress, hurt and humiliation. In this regard vindication involves not only compensation for past and future losses, but a sum sufficient to convince a bystander of the baselessness of the charge, and the court will normally arrive at a composite award of damages. (Broome v Cassell & Co. Limited[1972] AC 1027). Although a defendant should not be made to pay damages for conducting a proper, albeit unsuccessful defence, damages for defamation can be aggravated by unreasonable behaviour in the conduct of the defence which causes additional hurt to feelings. (Cairns v Modi [2012] EWCA Civ 1382).

The update is written in English and includes the following statements within it:

“Recently the Newport Muslim community has learnt to their shock and horror, that three individuals by the name of Abdul Rahman Mujahid, Mohammed Arshad Rehman and Mohammed Ashraf aka Mohammed Aslam have put the Al-Noor Mosque into their own personal names as proprietors, and also a small piece of land recently purchased behind the Jamia Mosque. The same individuals have also put this piece of land, known as the mortuary, into their own personal names.”

“Abdul Rahman Mujahid together with the other two people have also created their own private and personal trusts, namely Anjuma Raza-E-Mustafa Trust, and attached it this to Al-Noor Mosque, and they also made another trust, Jamia Hanfia Rizvia Mosque Trust and attached this to the Jamia Mosque Newport. They lead the charity commissioners to believe that these were official trusts of Jamia Mosque and Al-Noor Mosque, and obtained charitable status from the Charity Commission UK.”

“Abdul Rahman Mujahid together with the other two people have under this charitable status been collecting money from Muslim public at large. To date the Muslim worshipping public have no knowledge of any accounts. No accounts have been provided for the public.”

“The sad thing is that a Newport Assembly member Mohammed Asghar has been supporting these three individuals in their various endeavours at various times; this interference is totally unacceptable to the Muslim worshipping community. The Management Committee Chairman has sent official warnings to Mohammed Asghar AM and Abdul Rahman Mujahid to refrain from their unacceptable bad behaviour in the Mosque and towards the Muslim worshippers in the Mosque.”

“When Mohammed Asghar AM and Abdul Rahman Mujahid’s behaviour became intolerable the interim Management Committee felt that this type of behaviour will cause a breach of the peace and public disorder amongst the worshipping Muslim community. As a result the Management Committee had no other choice but to ask the court for an anti-social behaviour order (ASBO) in the Cardiff County Court. The order was granted in December 2011, banning Mohammed Asghar AM and Abdul Rahman Mujahid from causing trouble and not to interfere with the worshipping Muslim community in the two mosques.”

“When the banning order expired and the Management Committee made an application to extend it Abdul Rahman Mujahid gave his undertaking that he, nor his two private trusts members, will no longer be interfering with the worshippers directly or indirectly in Jamia and Al-Noor Mosque. This also included Mohammed Asghar AM as the co-defendant in the Cardiff County Court. As a result of the undertaking the Management Committee Chairman Manzoor Ahmad withdrew the further application for an injunction under a mediation agreement.”

I accept that these words are defamatory in that they suggest that the 2^nd claimant and others have sought to gain personally from the mosques’ property, and that the 1^st claimant has encouraged them in their endeavours. Moreover, that the claimants have behaved badly at the mosques to the extent that the County Court banned them from causing trouble at the mosques, and at the expiry of those bans the claimants undertook not to interfere with the mosques’ congregations.

The dossier includes documents written in Urdu in respect of which a translation has been pleaded by the claimants, the accuracy of which has not been contested by the defendants, which contain the following statements within them:

I accept that the words are defamatory in that they suggest that the 2^nd claimant sought to defraud an insurer, that he was strongly believed to have been knowingly involved in passing counterfeit money, and knowingly using the mosque trust to obtain false work permits; they falsely alleged that the 1^st Claimant was banned from entering the mosque because he had breached the peace, that he sought to promote sectionalism for his own political benefit, that he was knowingly involved in financial scandals by receiving corrupt payments and money laundering, and the Newport Magistrates’ Court had found that he was a liar. Also that it is highly likely that a fraud has been committed by the 2^nd claimant as a result of the 2^nd claimant wrongfully placing the Al-Noor Mosque into his own name for his personal benefit, and the 1^st claimant has aided and abetted the 2^nd claimant in his endeavours, and has intimidated those who have sought to oppose the 2^nd claimant, and that the 2^nd claimant had permitted the 1^st claimant to use the mosque for political purposes in return for a corrupt payment.

The website includes, in addition to those matters contained in the original Nawa-i-Jang article, the following statements within other documents posted on it:

I accept that the words contained in the re-published Nawa-i-Jang article are defamatory in that they suggest that the 2^nd claimant sought to defraud an insurer, that he was strongly believed to have been knowingly involved in passing counterfeit money, and knowingly using the mosque trust to obtain false work permits; they falsely alleged that the 1^st Claimant was banned from entering the mosque because he had breached the peace, that he sought to promote sectionalism for his own political benefit, that he was knowingly involved in financial scandals by receiving corrupt payments and money laundering, and the Newport Magistrates’ Court had found that he was a liar. Also that it is highly likely that a fraud has been committed by the 2^nd claimant as a result of the 2^nd claimant wrongfully placing the Al-Noor Mosque into his own name for his personal benefit, and the 1^st claimant has aided and abetted the 2^nd claimant in his endeavours, and has intimidated those who have sought to oppose the 2^nd claimant, and that the 2^nd claimant had permitted the 1^st claimant to use the mosque for political purposes in return for a corrupt payment. Also that the words contained in the website’s own article are defamatory in that they suggest that the 2^nd claimant and others have obtained mosque property for his own personal benefit.

In his witness statement dated 30^th January 2014 the 2^nd claimant stated that he was born and raised in Pakistan before settling in Newport in 1976. He joined the Al-Noor mosque, and in 1979 he co-founded an organisation known as Anjuman Raza-E-Mustafa, the object of which was to organise Muslim religious affairs in South Wales. He stated that it was this organisation which, in about 1980, was responsible for the establishment of the Jamia mosque. In the following year, 1981, individuals were appointed to hold the property upon which the mosque was to be built on trust for the benefit of the congregation, and he was elected onto the management committee which would be responsible for administering the affairs of the mosque. He stated that in about 1989 he became secretary of the management committee of both the Al-Noor and Jamia mosques, and in 2003 and 2009 respectively, he became a trustee of Al-Noor and Jamia mosques. He said that he always acknowledged that he and the other trustees held the ownership of the mosques on trust for the benefit of their congregations.

It was in September 2011 that the 2^nd claimant stated that he began to experience problems with a number of individuals, including the first four defendants, who were seeking to challenge the ownership and governance of the two mosques. He said that despite providing explanations to them, the association which had been formed was not prepared to listen, and instead sought his own resignation from the mosques’ management committee. He said that although the mediation meeting on 15^th September 2011 appeared to have resolved the dispute, thereafter those representing the association reneged on their agreement. He said that he had had no notice of the application for an injunction against him and first became aware of it on 21^st December 2011.

In so far as the meeting on 8^th January 2012 is concerned, the 2^nd claimant stated that this was extensively advertised in Newport, and that, although he was not present at the meeting, he was informed that the 1^st defendant had circulated the update to those in attendance. Subsequently he was present when Mike Davies showed the 1^st claimant a bundle of documents which had been provided to Superintendent Johnson, which the 1^st claimant recognised as the same documentation contained in the dossier which had been provided to Andrew Davies.

He said that he considered that all of the defendants were educated people who understood the legal documentation concerning the ownership of the mosques, and therefore were aware that he only held the properties on trust. Moreover the 1^st defendant was his brother-in-law, who for a long time has had a personal vendetta against him. He said that the defamatory material has had a major impact on his standing within the local community, which has caused him a considerable degree of distress. Although the 2^nd claimant made no mention of the separate defamation action against the Nawa-i-Jang newspaper, he acknowledged that there had been a public meeting on 29^th January 2012 at which the claimants had explained their position, as a result of which a new management committee had been formed. However despite this he said that the defendants continued to defame him.

In cross-examination at trial, the 2^nd claimant acknowledged that the matters contained in the update, were ones which were being widely discussed within the Muslim community prior to its publication. He accepted that he and the 1^st claimant had successfully sued those responsible for the publication of the article about them in the Nawa-i-Jang newspaper. He said that he was unsure as to whether what was contained in the dossier was largely repetitive of the contents of that article. He said that he had tried to contact some of those to whom it was suggested in the dossier that it had been sent, but that none of them had replied to him. He said that the reason why he had brought the present proceedings against the 1^st defendant and others, rather than the remainder of the association’s interim committee, was because it was the 1^st defendant who had taken him to court in the injunction proceedings.

He accepted that one of the 1^st defendant’s main concerns appeared to be his perception that there was a lack of transparency in the management of the mosques. When he was asked about the production of the mosques’ financial accounts, he appeared to have difficulty in recollecting when these had first been published; initially suggesting that they had not been published prior to about 2012, but subsequently stating that that they had always been published. He said that he didn’t know who were the present trustees of the Jamia mosque, because the charitable trust of which he was a trustee had nothing to do with the mosque itself, rather it owned the land immediately behind the mosque. The 2^nd claimant acknowledged that the 1^st claimant had paid him the sum of £2,000.00 in order to fund a trip with a number of imams to Saudi Arabia to attend the Hajj, and he agreed that the imams had told the mosques’ congregations to vote for the 1^st claimant in the Assembly elections. He said that a number of years ago his own son had defrauded the post office where the 2^nd claimant was the manager. However, despite extensive questioning he was unable to assist as to the amount that his son had stolen.

He said that on 16^th December 2011 he had removed a mobile phone from a member of the congregation at one of the mosques because he was using its camera facility to record the 1^st defendant during prayer time. It was suggested to him by the 4^th defendant that after the dossier had been provided to the 1^st claimant by Andrew Davies, either he or the 1^st claimant had placed the letter dated 24^th January 2012 in the dossier. He denied that this was the case. He also denied the suggestions, put to him by the 4^th defendant, that he had held a long-term grudge against the 4^th defendant, due to him having been in the British Army and having married a European woman. He said that although he had previously signed documents which appeared to provide for the cessation of one organisation called the Muslim Educational and Welfare Society “of Wales”, and the inception of another called the Muslim Educational and Welfare Society “Wales”, there had been no deception involved and he had not properly understood what he had signed when he was asked to do so.

In his witness statement dated 30^th January 2014 the 1^st claimant stated that he was born and raised in Pakistan before settling in Newport. He is a chartered accountant and since 2007 an elected member of the Welsh Assembly. He said that in September 2011 he agreed to act as the mediator in a dispute concerning the ownership and management of the two mosques. As far as he was concerned the mediation was a success. However subsequently the agreement had not been implemented because he had been accused of being partisan by those representing the association’s interim committee.

He said that he had not had notice of the interim injunction application. The first time he was aware of it was on the evening of 20^th December 2011. Thereafter he had arranged to be legally represented at the adjourned hearing a couple of days later.

He said that although he did not attend the meeting on 8^th January 2012, he understood that the defendants who were present at the meeting had distributed the update to the audience. He said that the content of the update was false and would be likely to cost him his position as a Shadow Minister for Equalities and Sport. He stated that the similarity of the matters contained in the witness statements in support of the injunction proceedings and those contained in the subsequent Nawa-i-Jang newspaper article and the 5^th defendant’s website was such that he believed that all of the defendants were acting as a group intent on ruining his political career. He is a Conservative, whereas the defendants are Labour supporters. Moreover they are from a different Muslim sect to himself.

He stated that in February 2012 he had been provided with a dossier of documents by Andrew Davies, who stated that he had been provided with them by the 4^th defendant. He said that subsequently on 10^th February 2012, Mike Davies had shown him and the 2^nd claimant a bundle of documents which had previously been provided to Superintendent Johnson and realised that they comprised the same documents.

The 1^st claimant acknowledged that he and the 2^nd claimant had successfully sued those responsible for the publication of the article in the Nawa-i-Jang newspaper, but said that publication of the false allegations about him, and in particular the re-publication of the Nawa-i-Jang article on the 5^th defendant’s website, has caused him a great deal of anguish and has put his life in danger. He does not attend the mosques as frequently as before, and it has adversely affected his political career.

In cross-examination at trial the 1^st claimant acknowledged that Andrew Davies was the leader of the Conservatives in the Welsh Assembly, but did not accept that Andrew Davies was the appropriate individual to whom his constituents should bring their concerns about the 1^st claimant. He accepted that after receiving the dossier, Andrew Davies didn’t take any further action, leaving it to be dealt with by the 1^st claimant. He also accepted that he had not sought to enquire of any of those to whom it was suggested in the dossier that it had been sent, whether they had received a copy of it.

The 1^st claimant acknowledged that during the course of the injunction proceedings he became aware that a fellow Conservative party member, Mian Abdul Rashid, had made a witness statement against him dated 22^nd December 2011, in which he expressed his disgust at the behaviour of the claimants. He accepted that he had subsequently informed Mian Rashid that he was going to take proceedings against the defendants and that Mian Rashid may be called to give evidence in those proceedings. He said that Mian Rashid had told him that he didn’t want to go to court. It was in those circumstances that an arrangement was made for Mian Rashid to see the firm of solicitors who were then acting for the 1^st claimant in order that he could revoke his earlier witness statement.

The 1^st defendant denied the allegation that was put to him by the 4^th defendant that he had effectively created the dossier, by inserting the documents within it. He also denied a further allegation that he had been responsible for distributing the update at the meeting on 8^th January 2012. He said that, despite having acted as the mediator of the dispute between the two sides, he was not aware of the details of the ownership of the two mosques. He agreed that he had over the years been a member of a number of different political parties, including Labour, Plaid Cymru and the Conservatives. He said that politics was like a pyramid and that everyone wants to get to the top.

Mohammed Tariq provided evidence in relation to a series of meetings which took place between some of the parties between November 2011 and January 2012. He is a friend of both of the claimants, and a member of the Muslim Education and Welfare Society of Wales of which the 2^nd claimant is the chairman; both of them sharing a financial interest in the organisation.

He said that the first meeting took place in November 2011 when the 2^nd defendant took him to the Sen Barbeque restaurant in Newport. He said that the 2^nd defendant was saying a number of detrimental things about the 2^nd claimant and showed him some documents from the Land Registry concerning the ownership of the mosques. Although in his earlier witness statement dated 30^th January 2014 he had said that the 2^nd defendant had told him that they had prepared a bundle of documents, he agreed that he had not seen any other documentation at that meeting.

Mohammed Tariq said that the second meeting took place a few days later when he went to see the claimants with the 5^th defendant. He said that the claimants had reassured him that none of the allegations which were being made against them were true, and that the 5^th defendant had been very supportive of the claimants at that meeting.

He said that the third meeting took place about a week later when the 5^th defendant asked him to visit the Mirchi restaurant in Cardiff with the 2^nd and 4^th defendants. In his witness statement Mohammed Tariq stated that during the course of the meeting the 4^th defendant had told him that he was forming a group to discredit the claimants because he alleged that the 2^nd claimant was involved in illegally bringing imams into the UK, stealing money from the mosques, unlawfully transferring the mosques into his own name and had been involved in counterfeit currency. However in his evidence he said that both the 2^nd and 4^th defendants had been putting these allegations to him. He said that at the end of the meeting the 4^th defendant had gone to the glove compartment of the motor car in which he had been the passenger and taken out a bundle of documents, but agreed in cross-examination that these were not those which were subsequently included within the dossier. Although he had made no mention of it in his witness statement, in the course of his evidence at court Mohammed Tariq said that one of the documents that he was shown by the 4^th defendant at this meeting said “update” on it.

The fourth meeting took place in mid-December at the Chicken Cottage restaurant in Newport at which the 1^st, 2^nd, 4^th and 5^th defendants were present. He said that during the course of the meeting the 1^st defendant had a bundle of documents with him. He said that although he hadn’t looked at the documents and there was no mention of a dossier, the 1^st defendant had told him that they were preparing a file on the claimants. He said that it was at this meeting that for the first time the 4^th defendant made allegations against the 1^st claimant in relation to the Pakistan air force and a slaughterhouse in Cardiff.

He said that when he later read the article in the Nawa-i-Jang newspaper, a number of the allegations matched those which had been made by the 4^th defendant during the course of the meetings with him.

The final meeting took place in January 2012 when the 5^th defendant came to his shop in Cardiff and handed to him a bundle of documents which he told him had been compiled by the 4^th defendant against the claimants. He later recognised that these were the same documents which were contained in the dossier when he was later shown a copy of it during the course of the assessment of damages hearing in relation to the separate defamation proceedings by the claimants against those responsible for the article in the Nawa-i-Jang newspaper. In cross-examination by the 4^th defendant, Mohammed Tariq denied that he had been provided with a copy of the dossier by the 1^st claimant, rather than by the 5^th defendant.

He accepted in cross-examination that as far as he was concerned there was nothing to link either of the 1^st or 2^nd defendants to the dossier. He denied holding a grudge against the 4^th defendant as a result of the latter’s criticism of him having received an award from the police when he had previously been convicted of an offence for selling alcohol to underage individuals. Mohammed Tariq denied having asked the 5^th defendant to post items on his website critical of the 4^th defendant. Mohammed Tariq said that in fact the 5^th defendant had also posted defamatory material about him on his website.

Mian Abdul Rashid was called to give evidence on behalf of the claimants. There was a witness statement which appeared to be signed by him on 22^nd December 2011, which suggested that he was both shocked and disgusted at the behaviour of both of the claimants; the 1^st claimant for supporting the 2^nd claimant who had created private trusts in relation to the mosques’ property. However, there was a further witness statement which appeared to be signed by him on 11^th November 2013 in which he suggested that he had not provided or signed the first witness statement. When this was explored with him in cross-examination he said that he had made and signed the first witness statement which was true, and that he had signed the second statement because he had been told by the 1^st claimant to go to a solicitor called Roshan Khan where he was shown the pre-prepared statement which he signed.

In re-examination Mian Rashid said that he had known the 1^st claimant for about 40 years and had never had a quarrel with him. On the contrary they have been good friends. He said that he didn’t like what the 2^nd claimant was doing at the mosques in Newport and mentioned this to the 1^st claimant, warning him not to get involved with the 2^nd claimant. He said that after the 1^st claimant discovered he had made his first witness statement, the 1^st claimant had pressed him to go and see his own solicitor in order to sign the second witness statement.

Martin Shipton said that when the group of individuals visited him after the first injunction hearing on 20^th December 2011, although he wanted to speak to the 1^st defendant, it was the 4^th defendant who had done most of the talking.

A number of witnesses were called on behalf of the claimants in relation to the meeting on 8^th January 2012, namely, Mohammed Javed Mujahid, Omar Mian and Mushtaq Ahmed. Collectively they gave evidence to the effect that they had all attended the meeting together with about 50 – 70 others. The meeting was chaired by the 1^st defendant, and they had picked up copies of the update from where they had been left on their chairs before they arrived, albeit Omar Mian stated that the update was also being handed out from a desk when people entered the meeting. Mohammed Javed Mujahid confirmed that he was the 2^nd claimant’s son and a fellow trustee of the Anjuma Raza-E-Mustafa trust. He said that between the two mosques there was a combined congregation in excess of 1000 people, and that the individual membership fee is £200.00 per annum. He accepted that a number of years ago he had been found guilty of committing an offence of fraud at the Post Office operated by his father, and although he too was unable to recall the amount involved, he had been sentenced to a term of 18 months’ imprisonment. Omar Mian accepted that he was a joint committee member together with the 2^nd claimant, having been selected to sit on the Jamia Hanfia Rizvia mosque committee.

I have also had the benefit of watching and listening to a video recording of the meeting itself in which, after introductions by the 3^rd defendant, who, together with others, was sat on the platform, the 1^st defendant gave an oral presentation in conjunction with electronic documents, concerning the ownership and management of the mosques. A transcript of the presentation has been prepared from which it is clear that the 1^st defendant was alleging, inter alia, that the 2^nd claimant and others had wrongfully placed mosque property into their own names for their own personal benefit, and obtained charitable status for their private trusts. He said that over the years there had been a lack of transparency in relation to the accounts of the mosques, and proposed that the solution lay in democratic elections for new individuals to be appointed as trustees and members of the management committee of the mosques. He also said that the 1^st claimant had been asked to assist in resolving these matters at a meeting, but hadn’t done so and instead had falsified the minutes of the meeting.

Andrew Davies said that he was unaware as to who had made the arrangements for him to hold a meeting on 26^th January 2012. However a group of about a dozen or so individuals arrived and for the first couple of minutes he was addressed by the 1^st defendant. However, as soon as the 4^th defendant arrived he took over and thereafter dominated the meeting. He was the only individual who spoke at any length and that everyone else was “virtually a silent participant”. Despite the suggestion put in cross-examination by the 4^th defendant that he had not handed the dossier to him, Andrew Davies said he was “100% crystal clear” that during the course of the meeting the 4^th defendant had produced the dossier of documents which was left with him at the end of the meeting.

He agreed that as the leader of the Conservative group in the National Assembly, he was the individual to whom someone could raise concerns about a Conservative Assembly Member. However, he said that during the course of a subsequent meeting with the 1^st claimant, he concluded that the matters which had been raised in the earlier meeting were not of any party or political concern. Therefore he simply handed the dossier to the 1^st claimant, so that he could sort out what he considered to be an internal dispute within the local community. That was the reason why he didn’t refer the dispute onto either the Standards Commissioner for the Assembly or the Standards Committee. He said that the 1^st claimant retained his support and had maintained his position in the shadow cabinet.

Sultan Ahmed had been a long standing member of the Muslim community in Newport prior to his removal to Newcastle upon Tyne. In his witness statement dated 30^th January 2014 he had provided part of the history of the two mosques, and in his evidence he said that in his opinion, during the course of recent attempts to settle the ongoing dispute, whereas the 3^rd and 4^th defendants had been willing to do so, neither the 1^st or 2^nd defendants had been prepared to do so.

The 1^st defendant provided a witness statement dated 31^st January 2014 and gave evidence at trial. He had been born and raised in Pakistan, but settled in Newport in 1969, where he has worked and raised his family. He knows the 1^st claimant as an accountant and local politician. The 2^nd claimant is his brother-in-law and someone whom he considers has limited tolerance for alternative religious opinions. The 2^nd defendant is a friend of his, and he met the 3^rd and 4^th defendants at the meeting at Geldards LLP, albeit he was previously aware of the 4^th defendant and understood him to have some legal qualifications. The 5^th defendant was someone with whom he had been acquainted a number of years ago, and his more recent acquaintance occurred when the 5^th defendant sought to recruit him to align himself with the interests of the 2^nd defendant.

The 1^st defendant has been part of the Al-Noor mosque congregation for a number of years. He provided a history of the ownership and management of both this and the more recent Jamia mosque, which culminated in a written constitution, entitled “The Sunni Muslim Welfare Association of Newport S. Wales”, providing for the appointment of trustees who would hold the ownership of the mosques’ property and administer it in accordance with a democratically elected management committee. He said that despite the existence of this constitution, the ownership and management of the mosques has for many years been vested in a relatively small body of non-elected individuals, of which the 2^nd claimant was its leading member. A matter which has caused some concern amongst the congregations as a result of a lack of accountability and transparency in the manner in which the mosques have been managed by them.

More recently the concerns of the 1^st defendant and others have become heightened, when documentation came to their attention, from which it appeared that the ownership of the mosques’ property had been transferred into the ownership of the 2^nd claimant and others, and that charitable status had been granted to organisations associated with these individuals.

It was in this context that on 15^th August 2011, the 1^st defendant said that a group of individuals, including the 3^rd and 4^th defendants, sought advice from lawyers specialising in charity law, namely Geldards LLP. Thereafter in the course of a subsequent meeting attended by between 80 – 100 members of the mosques’ congregations, at which the 2^nd claimant had initially attended but then left, it was decided to form a group which would campaign to re-establish democracy within the management of the mosques. The name of the body, with reference back to the written constitution, would be the association and the 1^st defendant was asked to be the chairman of its interim committee.

Subsequently on 15^th September 2011, following failed attempts to seek to resolve the situation between the two opposing groups; the 1^st claimant was asked to mediate. The 1^st defendant s account was that the parties reached a settlement of the matter which envisaged, inter alia, that they would select the membership of an interim body which would manage the mosques’ affairs and draw up criteria for the ownership of the mosques’ property and democratic elections to a new management committee. However, when the 1^st claimant sent the written minutes of the mediation to the parties, the 1^st defendant said that they did not properly reflect the agreed settlement, as a result of which, on 10^th October 2011, the 2^nd defendant wrote to the 1^st claimant reminding him of what had been agreed at the mediation. Subsequently on 10^th December 2011, the 1^st defendant wrote to the 2^nd claimant requesting implementation of some of the terms of the settlement.

There followed the two alleged incidents at the Jamia mosque on 9^th and 16^th December 2011, the former of which resulted in a letter being sent by the 1^st defendant to the 1^st claimant on 16^th December, and both of which were the subject matter of the injunction application which was heard on 20^th December 2011. In cross-examination the 1^st defendant said that the later incident did not take place during prayer time at the mosque, it occurred during a speech which he was making to the congregation, when the 2^nd claimant shouted out that he was providing a lying account and snatched a mobile phone out of the hands of a member of the congregation who was using it to video record the speech. He said that despite the contents of the letter of 20^th December 2011 which suggested that the application had been served on the 16^th rather than the 19^th December, he believed that the claimants had been notified of the injunction application on the latter date. He said that the 4^th defendant conducted both the original application for the injunction and the adjourned hearing on 22^nd December, because he was understood to have legal qualifications. Moreover the reason that both he and the 4^th defendant visited the offices of the Western Mail following the first hearing was because the matter was of concern to the local community.

In cross-examination he said that prior to the court hearings he had not known what an “ASBO” was, and that although the record of the agreement reached between the parties at the second hearing did not include any undertaking by the 1^st claimant, he had understood that as the lawyer representing the 2^nd claimant was also representing the 1^st claimant, they were both parties to the agreement.

The 1^st defendant said that thereafter tensions within the mosques’ communities were quite high and it was decided to hold a public meeting at which their concerns could be discussed. This took place on 8^th January 2012 and he spoke of the concerns of the interim committee in relation to the ownership and governance of the mosques. He said that he had arrived late for the meeting and that most people were in attendance by the time that he got there. In cross-examination he said that the 3^rd defendant’s role was limited to that of introducing the participants, after conducting prayers, the latter of which is his normal role. He said that he had not noticed the update at the meeting, and that although the update mentioned some of the concerns of the interim committee, these were matters which were already well known within the mosques’ congregations. He denied that he had had any part in the preparation of the update or its provision at the meeting. He pointed out that in contrast to all of the documentation which had been provided by the interim committee, the update lacked the association’s title, and in fact had a different one, namely the “Jamia & Al-Noor Mosques Newport Update.” Moreover, the update was neither signed by him, nor referred to the 1^st defendant in the first person, and he had not mentioned the update in the course of his speech.

He agreed that because of the concerns of the interim committee he had attended a subsequent meeting with Superintendent Johnson. In cross-examination he said that although he had taken some documents with him concerning the ownership of the mosques’ property, he didn’t recall leaving the documentation with the officer. He said that the advice which he had received from Superintendent Johnson was that as far as he understood, this was more of a civil rather than criminal matter.

The 1^st defendant said that he had been informed about the meeting with Andrew Davies on the day before it had taken place and had been asked to attend. He said that as far as he was concerned the purpose of the meeting was to raise the mosques’ congregations’ concerns that the 1^st claimant was acting inappropriately and introducing politics into the mosques. He said that he had not previously seen the dossier of documents and had taken no part in its production.

In cross-examination he said that as far as he was concerned his only aim had been to seek to obtain more transparency within the management and ownership of the mosques. He said that he did not personally want to either own or manage the mosques, and had not volunteered to be the chairman of the interim committee. He had only agreed to do so in the interim, pending democratic elections for others to take over these responsibilities. He said that after he had been shown the documentation concerning the ownership of the mosques’ properties he had had genuine concerns that the 2^nd claimant and others were seeking to obtain a personal benefit from them, albeit he now appreciated that it would be wrong to suggest that they had acted fraudulently. He agreed that he had never thought the 1^st claimant had acted fraudulently, but he believed that for his own political interests the 1^st claimant had been prepared to support the 2^nd claimant’s position. It was expressly suggested to him in cross-examination on behalf of the claimants, that it was the 4^th defendant who was spreading lies about the claimants, albeit the 1^st defendant was content for him to do so. The 1^st defendant denied that this was the position. He agreed that he had been asked to attend a single meeting with Mohammed Tariq. He did not believe that the 4^th defendant was present and that the only reason he was there was to explain his concerns about the lack of transparency in the governance of the mosques and he had shown him some of the documentation concerning the mosques. It was expressly suggested to the 1^st defendant on behalf of the claimants that the 4^th defendant had a close relationship with the proprietors of the Nawa-i-Jang newspaper. The 1^st defendant said that he had been unaware of this, and certainly hadn’t been responsible for, or had any knowledge of, the source of the article in either that newspaper or the website.

The 2^nd defendant arrived in the United Kingdom in 1965 when he was 10 years of age. He owns a restaurant in Newport where he lives with his family. He has been a Justice of the Peace since 2003, but has resigned that position due to the present proceedings brought against him by the claimants. He knows all of the parties in the case through his involvement in the local Muslim community, and has been the target of adverse publicity by the 5^th defendant on his website due to the sale of alcohol at his restaurant. He said that over the past few years there has been increasing concern within the mosques’ communities about the issue of their governance. Although the mosques are meant to be managed by democratically elected committees, they have been increasingly controlled by unelected bodies in which the 2^nd claimant has played a leading role. Moreover, particular concern has arisen more recently when it was discovered that the mosques’ property had been transferred into the ownership of the 2^nd claimant and others who also purported to represent charitable bodies.

It was arising out of these concerns that following an unsuccessful meeting with the 2^nd claimant on 15^th August 2011, that the mosques’ congregations appointed an interim committee to oversee their governance, pending the holding of elections of a full time committee. The 2^nd defendant said that he was a supporter of this process as was a large section of the congregations, as shown by the number of members who subsequently signed the petition supporting the interim committee. However he was not a member of the interim committee and neither attended the meeting on 15^th January 2012 where the update was available, nor the subsequent meeting with Andrew Davies. He had attended the mediation meeting on 15^th September 2011, as had a large number of others, and believed that a compromise had been reached between the 2^nd defendant and the interim committee. However when the minutes of this meeting were produced by the 1^st claimant, he wrote to him on 10^th October 2011 expressing his concern that the minutes failed to accurately record the agreement which had been concluded. He said that he received no reply to the letter and ultimately the agreement foundered because the 2^nd claimant failed to honour the agreement.

The 2^nd defendant said that the reason he had provided a witness statement in support of the application for an injunction against the 2^nd claimant was because he had been present at the Jamia Mosque on 16^th November 2011 and witnessed the disruption which had been caused by the 2^nd claimant. He said that on this occasion the 2^nd claimant had acted violently and aggressively with a member of the congregation who was simply recording a speech being made by the 1^st defendant in which he had thanked the 2^nd claimant for all his work at the mosque, but that he should now step aside in order to allow others to be elected to manage the mosques’ affairs. He said that someone besides himself had added the initials “JP” after his signature on his witness statement dated 18^th December 2011, and that this was one of the reasons why he had decided to resign as a Justice of the Peace, as he did not wish to cause any embarrassment to the Office.

The 2^nd defendant said that he had not attended the offices of the Western Mail, and that contrary to the impression provided in the letter dated 24^th January 2012 he had not attended upon Superintendent Johnson. He had neither signed the letter nor had any prior knowledge of it. In cross-examination on behalf of the claimants it was expressly suggested to him that the 4^th defendant may have been the author of this letter. The 2^nd defendant said that he was unaware if this was the case or not, albeit he knew that the 3^rd defendant’s command of English was not of a sufficient standard so as to have allowed him to do so. He said that he had not conspired with anyone either to produce the update, the dossier or the website. All he had desired was a peaceful resolution of the dispute at the mosques.

The 2^nd defendant said that he knows Mohammed Tariq because they both run businesses and had seen him about twice towards the end of 2011. On the first occasion he had attended with the 5^th defendant, and on the second with the 4^th defendant. He said that on both occasions he had discussed the issue of the governance of the mosques with him. On the first occasion he had asked Aftab Ali to join them in order to show them some of the documents concerning the ownership of the mosques’ property. On the latter there was a good deal of discussion between Mohammed Tariq and the 4^th defendant about issues which they had in relation to one of the mosques in Cardiff.

The 3^rd defendant is a married man living with his family in Newport. He normally attends the Jamia Mosque, where he sometimes leads the prayers. The 3^rd defendant said that he was aware of the dispute at the mosques, and in particular that concerning the ownership of the mosques’ property. However he had neither been involved with the publication of the update, the dossier or the website.

The 3^rd defendant said in evidence that his first language is Urdu, and although he can write a little in Urdu, he does not write in English. He said that he had been present at the Jamia Mosque on 16^th December 2011 when he saw the 2^nd claimant grab a mobile phone from a member of the congregation who was filming a speech which was being made by the 1^st defendant. He said that people often used their mobile phones to film speeches at the mosque and he had been upset by the conduct of the 2^nd claimant and therefore agreed to provide a witness statement for the purposes of the application for the injunction against him. In cross-examination he said that his statement had been written by someone else for him to sign, albeit he could not recall by whom, but believed the contents to be true. He said that he had attended upon the claimants’ homes in order to deliver the court papers on them, albeit he was unable to recall the date upon which this had occurred, but it may only have been after one of the court orders had been obtained. He said that his only role at the meeting on 8^th January 2012 was to conduct some prayers at the commencement of the meeting and then introduce those who were to speak at it.

In cross-examination the 3^rd defendant said that he along with many others had attended at the mediation meeting on 15^th September 2011, which he believed had been successful and that arrangements were going to be made for elections to be held for the management committee of the mosques. Subsequently however the congregations became upset when the 2^nd claimant said that he no longer wanted elections to take place. The 3^rd defendant said that the whole of the Muslim community was discussing the matter and were concerned that the 2^nd claimant had placed the mosques’ property into his own and others’ personal names, and that the 1^st claimant appeared to be supporting him for his own political ends.

The 3^rd defendant agreed that he had attended a meeting with the police and subsequently one with Andrew Davies, both of which had been attended by the 4^th defendant, and the latter of which had been attended by about 20 others. However he had never written or signed the letter to Superintendent Johnson dated 24^th January 2012, and he was not aware of who had written it.

The 4^th defendant said in his witness statement dated 31^st January 2014 that he knew both of the complainants and had spent most of his life undertaking voluntary work promoting community cohesion. It was in this capacity that he said he had been approached by various members of the mosques’ congregations in order to assist with a problem which they had encountered in relation to the ownership of the mosques’ property, namely that it appeared to be held personally by the 2^nd claimant and others, rather than on behalf of the congregations, and that the 1^st claimant appeared to be supporting the 2^nd claimant. He said that he had agreed to assist the congregations, but that his only role had been to act as an advocate at the hearing of the application for an injunction against the claimants, and to attend upon Andrew Davies in order to report the misbehaviour of the 1^st claimant in the Jamia Mosque, and the payment by him for the visit of the imams to Saudi Arabia. He said that he had not been involved in the publication of either the update or the website. Indeed, he too had been the victim of adverse material on the 5^th defendant’s website, published at the behest of the claimants.

In the documents, both witness statements and written submissions, provided by the 4^th defendant during the currency of the adjourned hearing in December 2014, he gave varying accounts as to his involvement with some of the documentation and meetings; at one point alleging that although he may have provided some documents concerning the two mosques in a dossier to Andrew Davies on behalf of the community, the allegedly defamatory documents had been added to the dossier by the claimants; at another point he denied either having spoken at the meeting or having provided any dossier to Andrew Davies. His original defence stated that he had no recollection as to who it was handed the dossier to Andrew Davies. He alleged that Mohammed Tariq was lying about his involvement with the 4^th defendant, because he had criticised Mohammed Tariq when the latter had received an award from the police for his work on behalf of the local community. He pointed out that one of the documents emanating from the 5^th defendant confirmed the existence of a vendetta against him by Mohammed Tariq and the claimants.

With the exception of the 4^th defendant, I have had the considerable advantage of both observing and listening to the various witnesses give evidence in this case over an extended period of time, and have reached general conclusions as to both their credibility and motivations. In reaching these conclusions I of course bear in mind any disadvantage to either the claimants or any other party from having been precluded from cross-examining the 4^th defendant, and any disadvantage to the 4^th defendant from him not having provided live evidence and submissions to the court, albeit that as a significant part of his own cross-examination of the other witnesses was prefaced with his own observations, I have been able to make a reasonable assessment of the manner in which he would have provided both his evidence and submissions, which I have read in the copious written documents with which he has provided the court, particularly during the course of the part-heard trial.

In so far as the claimants are concerned, as I have already observed, I have some misgivings as to their motivation for their repeated and unjustified attempts to seek an adjournment of the hearing of this case. In this regard I consider that there may well be some truth in the submissions made on behalf of some of the defendants, that the mere existence, rather than the resolution of these proceedings would, at the very least, effect a delay in the resolution of the concerns of a significant section of the mosques’ congregations in relation to the governance of the mosques. On the other hand, I do not overlook the submission made on behalf of the claimants that any such concerns could in themselves have been sought to have been made the subject of litigation.

Moreover, to the extent that the motivation of some of the defendants is said by them to be borne out of genuine concern as to the governance of the mosques, I consider that the 2^nd claimant’s evidence has not assuaged these concerns. On the contrary, I found the 2^nd claimant to be unhelpful in illuminating the manner in which the governance of the mosques operates. Even putting aside the issue of democracy, I was left with a distinct impression of lack of transparency and accountability in their management, together with a concomitant reluctance for there to be any alteration in the status quo.

In regard to the 1^st claimant, he has no doubt been an effective politician. The impression which I gained from his evidence was that he had been rather flattered to be asked to act as the mediator in this dispute, and saw some advantage to be gained from acting in this capacity within the mosques’ congregations. Equally however, the implementation of the mediated agreement having failed, for reasons which so far as the claimants are concerned remains unclear, he now finds himself in the uncomfortable position of having been perceived by some to have been partisan, and regrets his involvement. The 1^st claimant is certainly articulate and extremely polite to those in perceived positions of authority. However with those of whom he has no such perceptions, including in particular Mian Abdul Rashid, I consider that he can be somewhat overbearing.

The clear impression which I gained from the 1^st defendant’s evidence was that whilst, when pressed, he was prepared to articulate a cause with some vigour, he would only do so, and did on this occasion, when he was genuinely concerned on behalf of the mosques’ congregations that there had not only been a lack of transparency in their management, but that this lack of transparency coupled with the documentation which had recently come to light, drove him to the genuine belief that the 2^nd claimant and others were seeking to gain personal advantage from their dealings with this property, and that the 1^st claimant’s attitude towards the implementation of the mediated agreement supported these endeavours. Although the 1^st defendant had agreed to act as the chairman of the association’s interim committee, I did not gain the impression that he had been enthusiastic in accepting the position; rather he undertook it out of a sense of duty. Moreover, I certainly didn’t gain the impression that the committee ran as a well-oiled machine, rather a disparate group of amateurs doing their best; far from being able to organise, let alone orchestrate everything which may have been said or done by its supporters or others. As a witness to events, I found the 1^st defendant to be honest and straightforward. I also detected no evidence of the alleged vendetta (the details of which were never provided by the 2^nd claimant) or any other improper motive against either of the claimants.

None of the other defendants were members of the association’s interim committee. The 2^nd defendant appeared to be a liberal Muslim who was motivated by a desire to see both democracy and transparency brought to bear upon the governance of the mosques. He was clearly intelligent and measured in his response to questions, and whilst willing to support these causes did not wish to become overly involved in the campaign to promote them. Hence his lack of attendance at either of the meetings on 8^th or 26^th January 2012. Overall, I detected no improper motivation by him against either of the claimants, and consider him to be an honest and straightforward witness. The 3^rd defendant appeared to be an individual of more traditional Muslim hue, regularly involved in matters of prayer at the Jamia Mosque. However, in addition to supporting the causes of democracy and transparency, he appeared to have been genuinely upset at the actions of the 2^nd claimant at the mosque on 16^th December 2011. That said, having heard him give evidence, I certainly didn’t gain the impression that he would have been likely to have played any pro-active role in any campaign; at most he would have been a follower of events. He did not appear to have been improperly motivated against either of the claimants, and he too appeared to be an honest and straightforward witness.

Although there appeared to be a good deal of vocal and written support by the 4^th defendant for the campaign to introduce more democracy and transparency into the mosques’ governance, I am unconvinced that I detected any genuine desire for these goals in themselves; rather I was left with the distinct impression that the 4^th defendant enjoyed acting as a self-imposed advocate for the campaign, and, for reasons which were not able to be explored in cross-examination, he was really motivated by a desire to injure the claimants by peddling his own agenda of more extravagant accusations of corruption against them. Hence whilst I remain suspicious, yet ultimately unpersuaded, as to the identity of the author and publisher of the update, I am quite sure that the compiler and publisher of the dossier was the 4^th defendant. He was an extremely articulate advocate in court, and I have no doubt an equally articulate and vociferous advocate outside that arena. He clearly appeared to relish his time in court, cross-examining the claimants and their witnesses, and I have little doubt that unencumbered by any rules of court, he took the leading part in advocating his own agenda against the claimants. Ultimately however when the time came for his account to be challenged, given the history of the trial proceedings, including both the lack of justifying medical evidence and the voluminous written material which thereafter appeared, I consider that at least part of the motivation for the 4^th defendant’s absence from the adjourned hearing was due to his reluctance to be cross-examined about his own evidence.

In the absence of having seen the 5^th defendant or fully considering his evidence, it would be inappropriate for me to provide any assessment of him; save perhaps to observe that the evidence which I have heard suggests that the use of his website to post derogatory remarks about individuals is well known, and is not confined to one side or other of the current dispute.

Turning then to the context in which the issues in this case fall to be decided, it seems to me that over the years leading up to 2011 and beyond, both democracy and transparency were lacking in the management of both the Al-Noor and the Jamia Mosques. It is not for me to determine whether the lack of democracy was a matter which offended against the rules regulating the affairs of the mosques, albeit there is some support for it in the contemporary documentation. However, the lack of transparency in relation to financial affairs is a requirement of a more general nature, and I am satisfied that both this and the lack of democracy was a matter of genuine and deep concern to a significant section of the congregations of both of these mosques. Moreover I am equally of the view that when the documentation in relation to the ownership of the mosques’ property came to light, although it provides for the 2^nd claimant and others to hold the property on trust for the benefit of the congregations, both the prior lack of knowledge of the existence of the documentation and the pre-existing lack of transparency and accountability in the management of the mosques, caused genuine and serious concern to members of the congregations that the 2^nd claimant and others were seeking to personally benefit from the mosques’ funds.

In this regard it is of relevance that not only is it clear that the mosques’ membership fees generate significant sums, but that the purchase of the land to the rear of the Jamia Mosque appears to have been unknown to any outside those directly involved in its purchase. Whilst I appreciate that certain of the defendants had sought some legal advice about the matter, this has not been explored on behalf of the claimants and thus the nature of it is unknown, and may have been limited to an exploration of the charity documentation. Moreover the general lack of transparency, which has remained unexplained by the 2^nd claimant in his evidence, will have only fuelled the impression which had been gained by the defendants, that the 2^nd claimant and others had matters which they did not wish to disclose, as did, no doubt, the breakdown in the implementation of the mediated agreement; a matter which I have already observed remains unexplained by either of the claimants, and which in turn appears to have generated a belief amongst some, that the 1^st claimant had knowingly supported the 2^nd claimant in these endeavours.

It is in that context that I am satisfied that without putting himself forward, and in the absence of any ameliorating response from the 2^nd claimant prior to August 2011, that on 15^th August, the 1^st defendant was asked and agreed to be chairman of an interim committee on behalf of a significant section of the mosques’ congregations which wished to promote a movement towards both democracy and transparency in their governance; causes to which the 2^nd and 3^rd defendants were equally committed, and to which the 4^th defendant aligned himself.

Thereafter whilst there is some documentation setting out the views of the defendants both before and after the mediation on 15^th September 2011, in contrast there is none of any note from the claimants. Eventually it appears to have been appreciated, no doubt by both sides of the dispute, that the mediated agreement was not going to be implemented.

It was during this period between November 2011 and January 2012 that Mohammed Tariq says that a series of meetings took place between him and certain of the defendants. Having seen him give evidence, whilst I am prepared to accept the majority of his evidence, I consider it unlikely that in the absence of notes he would have been able to recall all of their detail, location or precisely who was at each of them. Moreover there is some embellishment upon the contents of the original witness statement for which there is no satisfactory explanation. In this regard, whereas it appears that there are some close connections between Mohammed Tariq and the 2^nd claimant, I reject the suggestion made by the 4^th defendant that this renders his evidence unworthy of belief. On the contrary, subject to the observations I have made I found his evidence in general terms to be both accurate and truthful.

There appears to have been an initial meeting with the 2^nd defendant when the latter explained to Mohammed Tariq the concerns about the governance of the mosques and showed him some Land Registry documents concerning their ownership. The 2^nd defendant agrees that this meeting took place, albeit at the behest of the 5^th defendant and after Aftab Ali had collected the documents for him.

I accept that there was a further meeting which the 2^nd defendant attended, this time in the presence of the 4^th defendant. Whilst I am prepared to accept, as Mohammed Tariq had stated in his witness statement, that the 4^th defendant made widespread allegations of corruption against the 2^nd claimant outside the immediate context of the dispute in relation to the two mosques, I am not prepared to accept the embellishment made in his evidence that the 2^nd defendant had joined in these allegations. Nor in fairness to the 4^th defendant am I prepared to accept the embellishment to his witness statement that one of the documents which the 4^th defendant produced, none of which formed part of the dossier, included a document with the word “update” upon it. It is of note that the 2^nd defendant recalls a second meeting with Mohammed Tariq, and it was during the course of this meeting that he recalled the 4^th defendant making some other allegations concerning the 2^nd claimant, including an allegation in relation to one of the mosques in Cardiff.

I accept that a further meeting took place, at which the 1^st and 4^th defendants were in attendance. The 1^st defendant was in possession of a bundle of documents, albeit there was no mention of a dossier, and the 4^th defendant made further allegations of corruption, this time relating to the 1^st claimant. This evidence, in so far as the 1^st defendant’s attendance at the meeting is concerned, aligns with that of the 1^st defendant, albeit he didn’t recall the presence of the 4^th defendant. He stated that the documents were those relating to the ownership of the mosques, and I accept that this was the case.

I accept that when Mohammed Tariq later read the article in the Nawa-i-Jang newspaper, a number of the allegations matched those which had been made by the 4^th defendant during the course of the meetings with him. Moreover that there was an occasion when the 5^th defendant came to Mohammed Tariq’s shop in Cardiff and handed to him a bundle of documents which he told him had been compiled by the 4^th defendant against the claimants, and he later recognised that these were the same documents which were contained in the dossier when he was later shown a copy of it.

It seems to me that the general thrust of Mohammed Tariq’s evidence, as he acknowledged, was that whilst it shows a clear connection between the 4^th defendant and at least the contents of the dossier, if not the original Nawa-i-Jang article, although the 1^st and 2^nd defendants have met him and discussed issues surrounding the governance of the mosques with him, there is nothing to connect either of them with the production of the dossier. I am satisfied that the only documentation which the 1^st and/or 2^nd defendants had with them, and to which they referred, was that limited to the governance of the mosques. To any extent that either of them was present when the 4^th defendant said anything of a more extravagant nature concerning wider corruption by the claimants, there is no evidence that either of them lent their support to those allegations, and I consider that they would not have done so.

To the extent that it is relevant in relation to these proceedings, I heard insufficient evidence upon which to reach any conclusion about the behaviour of the 1^st claimant at the Jamia Mosque on 9^th December 2011. However, I am satisfied that on 16^th December 2011 the 2^nd claimant did act in an aggressive manner towards a member of the congregation when, as he admitted in evidence, he grabbed a mobile phone from him in order to prevent him from using it to film the proceedings at the mosque, when the 1^st defendant was updating the congregation about the governance issues at the mosques.

Whether, in response to these actions, it was appropriate for the interim committee to have thereafter decided to seek an injunction from the County Court in order to attempt to control those actions is another matter. However, I am satisfied that they were genuinely motivated by a desire to prevent what they perceived as disruptive actions by the claimants, and I note that the only assistance which they received appears to have been from the 4^th defendant, who acted as their advocate at the two hearings. In this regard, it is of note that a significant section of the 3^rd defendant’s statement in support of the continuation of the interim injunction appears to be unrelated to the incidents at the Jamia Mosque, and deals with alleged harassment by the claimants against the 4^th defendant. Although this is not a matter which was explored to any great extent at trial, such that I am not in a position to reach any determination about it, I retain a suspicion that the author of this witness statement may have been the 4^th defendant. Moreover, as it was clear during the course of the trial that the 4^th defendant has acquired some legal knowledge, I anticipate that some of the other documentation relating to these proceedings may well have emanated from him.

In relation to the subsequent visit to the offices of the Western Mail, whereas this may have lacked prudence, I do not consider that it is evidence of any improper motive on the part of the 1^st defendant.

I am satisfied that the purpose of the meeting which the interim committee organised on 8^th January 2012 was to explain to the mosques’ congregations, both what genuine concerns they had relating to the governance of the mosques, and their plans for the holding of elections to the alternative governance structure. Moreover, I am satisfied that not only did those who organised and spoke at the meeting consider that they had a moral obligation to explain those concerns to the congregations, but that they did have such an obligation, and that those whom they anticipated would, and did attend the meeting, had a reciprocal interest in understanding those concerns. It may of course be, as with any open event, that there were some individuals in attendance who had no connection with either of the mosques, and therefore had no such reciprocal interest in their affairs. However, not only do I consider that the notice publicising the event would have been unlikely to attract those without such an interest, but having seen the video of the meeting, the numbers in attendance appear to have been far nearer the lower end of the estimated range. Furthermore, there is no evidence that any of them were not members of the mosques’ congregations.

In these circumstances I am satisfied that the meeting would have attracted the privilege necessary to protect the 1^st defendant who spoke at the meeting from a claim for defamation, and that the possible presence of others who were not legally interested in the issues concerning the mosques would not have invalidated that privilege, because their presence could not reasonably have been avoided, and the communication to them was ancillary and incidental to the communication to those who shared such mutuality of interest. As I have already observed, I am satisfied that the 1^st defendant genuinely believed in the truth of what he said about the 1^st and 2^nd claimants, and acted with no improper motive in doing so. In these circumstances had the claimants chosen to commence an action against the 1^st defendant for slander arising out of this meeting, (the decision not to do so remaining unexplained at trial), I am satisfied that he would have been in a position to successfully defend such an action.

However, in the present action for defamation, based upon the publication of the update, I am not satisfied that the claimants have overcome the initial hurdle of establishing that any of the defendants were responsible, either personally or jointly with others, for its publication. I am of course conscious that much of what the 1^st defendant said in his oral presentation to the meeting was reflected in the written update. However, as was acknowledged by the 2^nd claimant, much of this was common knowledge within the mosques’ congregations. I have no doubt that if the 1^st defendant had either been responsible for the authorship of the update or knew of its existence, he would have been likely to refer to it during the course of his oral presentation. Moreover, if he had been responsible for its authorship, like other documents emanating from him on behalf of the interim committee, it would have been headed with the name of the association, written in the first person and signed by him.

Having seen the video, although the 1^st defendant’s oral presentation was well organised, as I have previously observed, I am not satisfied that the organisation of the meeting was sufficiently controlled either by the interim committee or any of the defendants so that it can be inferred that they would have been either directly or indirectly responsible for the publication of the update at the meeting on 8^th January 2012. The preponderance of evidence is that copies of the update had already been placed on the chairs of those who would be attending the meeting, and I do not accept the evidence of Omer Mian that copies of it were being handed out at the door. His evidence is out of alignment with the other evidence on this point, and as copies of the update had already been placed on the chairs, there would have been no purpose to be served in handing copies of the update at the door.

The 2^nd defendant was not present at the meeting, and although the 3^rd defendant was present, I consider that his role was extremely limited. In these circumstances there is nothing in the remaining evidence from which it could be properly inferred that either of them had taken part in either the authorship or publication of the update. In relation to the 4^th defendant, although he was present and was sufficiently motivated and equipped to have authored and published the update at the meeting, unlike the dossier, I am ultimately unpersuaded that there is sufficient evidence from which it can be properly inferred that he did so, albeit if he had, then I am satisfied that he would have lost the protection of any privilege from the occasion due to the improper motive that directed his actions towards the claimants.

I turn then to consider the dossier. In relation to its compilation, I consider that it is of significance that its most potentially damaging content was the copy of the original Nawa-i-Jang article, and in this regard I accept the evidence of Mohammed Tariq that some of the allegations, which the 4^th defendant made against the 1^st and 2^nd claimants in the course of his meetings with him between November 2011 and January 2012, were reflected in this article. Moreover, I also accept that at some point the 5^th defendant showed Mohammed Tariq a copy of the dossier, which the 5^th defendant told Mohammed Tariq had been given to him by the 4^th defendant. Although I am mindful that I have not had the benefit of hearing from the 5^th defendant in the trial, I am satisfied that it is likely that what he said to Mohammed Tariq on this occasion was true.

In these circumstances I accept that during the course of January 2012 the 4^th defendant began to compile a bundle of documents which, motivated by his desire to harm the claimants by making more extravagant accusations of corruption against them, he decided to distribute to various individuals, including both Superintendent Johnson and Andrew Davies. I consider it likely that, knowing the character and motivation of the other defendants, he did not disclose the full content of what was ultimately to become the dossier to them. I have no doubt that they would have assumed, quite correctly, that the bundle contained within it documents relating both to the ownership of the mosques and the history of the dispute. However, I consider that it is likely that the 4^th defendant deliberately withheld knowledge of the documents containing the more extravagant allegations from the other defendants, as he correctly anticipated that they would not have supported his ulterior intentions in this manner or at all.

Unfortunately I have not heard any evidence from Superintendent Johnson. However I consider it likely that when the 1^st, 3^rd and 4^th defendants met with him, although the 1^st defendant may well have had some of his own documents with him concerning the ownership of the mosques, as this was the reason why he and at least the 3^rd defendant had attended the meeting, I am satisfied that at some point the 4^th defendant left a bundle of other documents with the officer, which in due course were passed to Mike Davies and recognised by the 1^st claimant to be copies of at least some of the documents to be found within the dossier. In this regard I am not satisfied that either the 1^st or 3^rd defendants were aware that the bundle contained any documents other than those relating to the subject matter of the dispute in the Newport mosques. As I have already observed, the 4^th defendant is likely to have had good reason not to disclose this material to the other defendants. In this regard, although its resolution is not central to the issues in this case, I consider it likely that the author of the letter to Superintendent Johnson dated 24^th January 2012 was not, as implied, the 3^rd defendant, nor indeed the 2^nd defendant who had not been present, but the 4^th defendant who had been present at the meeting.

In relation to the meeting on 26^th January 2012, I am quite satisfied that Andrew Davies had a clear and accurate recollection of the event. He was unsure who had made the appointment for the meeting, and I accept the evidence of the 1^st defendant that he didn’t do so. It is apparent that, in the absence of the 4^th defendant, although, as chairman of the interim committee, the 1^st defendant commenced discussions with Andrew Davies, it is equally clear that as soon as the 4^th defendant arrived he took over the meeting, and it was he who produced the dossier and gave it to Andrew Davies. Once again, I consider it likely that both the 1^st and 3^rd defendants would have assumed that the dossier contained documents relating to the dispute at the Newport mosques, and had no reason to believe that it contained documents relating to any other matter. In this regard it was not explored with Andrew Davies as to the nature of the oral presentation made by the 4^th defendant, beyond his recollection that the 4^th defendant had led the discussion on the dossier, and at this remove of time it may well be that he would have had no such recollection. However in these circumstances there is no evidence that the oral presentation extended beyond discussions about either the dispute in relation to the mosques’ property and/or the conduct of the 1^st claimant in relation to that dispute. As I have already observed, it is likely that the 4^th defendant deliberately avoided mentioning his more extravagant allegations, as he correctly anticipated that the 1^st and 3^rd defendants would not have supported them.

In these circumstances I do not consider that there is any sufficient evidence to establish that either individually, or jointly, the 1^st, 2^nd and/or 3^rd defendants were responsible for either the compilation or publication of the dossier. On the other hand, I am satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the dossier was both compiled by the 4^th defendant and published by him to Andrew Davies, and that some parts of its contents were provided to both the 5^th defendant and Superintendent Johnson, albeit this latter publication, as the claimants concede, would have been absolutely privileged. In so far as the submission that the publication to Andrew Davies was an occasion attracting privilege, unlike the Standards Commissioner, I do not consider that there would have been sufficient mutuality of interest between Andrew Davies and the 4^th defendant in relation to these matters. In any event, I am quite satisfied that the 4^th defendant lost any such protection by reason of the fact that he had no honest belief in these more extravagant allegations, and in relation to the allegations concerning the dispute in relation to the mosques’ property and the 1^st claimant’s conduct in relation to that dispute, the 4^th defendant was in any event improperly motivated by his desire to injure the claimants by any means at his disposal. Furthermore, this was not a situation in which, exceptionally, the 4^th defendant was under any duty to provide known defamatory material to Andrew Davies. In relation to the issue of the wider dissemination of the dossier to those individuals mentioned within it, there is no evidence before me from any of those individuals, and, in its absence, I am not prepared to infer its wider distribution. It seems to me that the naming of these individuals is as equally likely to be mere puffery on the part of the 4^th defendant, as opposed to determined intent, let alone action on his part to distribute it to them.

There is no evidence that the 1^st, 2^nd or 3^rd defendants were involved in the publication of any of the items posted on the 5^th defendant’s website. Moreover, I am wholly unconvinced that there was, as alleged by the claimants, any concerted campaign by the 1^st, 2^nd or 3^rd defendants to defame the claimants in order to secure control of the mosques.

The evidence against the 4^th defendant comprises that of the witness Mohammed Tariq, who I am satisfied was honest and accurate in his evidence that, in January 2012 the 5^th defendant handed him a bundle of documents which he told him had been compiled by the 4^th defendant against the claimants, which he later recognised were the same documents as those contained in the dossier. As I have already observed I am conscious that I have not had the benefit of listening to the evidence of either the 4^th or 5^th defendants during the course of the trial. However, not only do I consider that there is no particular reason to doubt the truth of what Mohammed Tariq was told by the 5^th defendant, but as I am satisfied that the 4^th defendant was the compiler of the dossier, it is likely that he would have been the individual who provided the dossier to the 5^th defendant.

However, that in itself is by no means sufficient to establish liability against the 4^th defendant for the publication of the material on the website. In order to do so the claimants are required to prove that by providing the 5^th defendant with the dossier, the 4^th defendant intended to and did encourage the 5^th defendant to re-publish its contents on his website.

In this regard, I am satisfied that the claimants are able to establish joint liability for the publication of those parts of the website which posted copies of the documents within the dossier, namely the posting of the original Nawa-i-Jang article. Although the article is undoubtedly one which is able to be obtained from a variety of sources, including the newspaper’s own website, the 4^th defendant was well aware of the 5^th defendant’s proclivity for posting material of a derogatory nature on his website (such material having been posted about various of the parties including the 4^th defendant) and, given the 4^th defendant’s improper intention of causing injury to the claimants, I am satisfied, both that his intention in providing the material to the 5^th defendant was to encourage him to publish the material on the website, and that it did encourage the 5^th defendant to do so.

In this regard, the evidence of Mohammed Tariq is that at an earlier stage of the chronology of events in this case, the 5^th defendant had been supportive of the claimants. However, after coming into possession of the dossier, it is apparent that his allegiances changed, and he posted the defaming material on his website. Indeed, given the correlation between the allegations which the 4^th defendant had been making to Mohammed Tariq during his meetings with him, it is certainly open to question as to whether the 4^th defendant was the source of at least some of the contents of the original newspaper article. However, I make it clear that the claimants have not sought either in the previous or present action to allege liability against the 4^th defendant on this basis, and it forms no part of the assessment of any damages in this case.

I am of course conscious that the claimants have already been awarded substantial damages for defamation against the publishers of the Nawa-i-Jang newspaper article, albeit that despite significant attempts to do so, the claimants have been unable to recover payment. Indeed, in the course of the trial it was submitted on behalf of the 1^st and 2^nd defendants, and subsequently adopted by the 4^th defendant, that in these circumstances the present action on behalf of the claimants amounted to an abuse of process, and I was referred to authorities on the point including, Jameel (Yousef) v Dow Jones & Co Inc[2005] EWCA Civ 75 andCammish v Hughes [2012] EWCA Civ 1655. However, it seems to me given the role which the 4^th defendant played in the publication of the defamatory material for which he has been found liable, his motivation, and the serious nature of the libel, the claimants have successfully pursued what has been a real and substantial tort committed against them by the 4^th defendant.

I do bear in mind that in so far as the publication of the dossier to Andrew Davies is concerned, his evidence was to the effect that he took little notice of its contents, believing it to be of a personal nature which would not adversely affect the 1^st claimant’s standing in the Conservative Party, and if the publication had only involved this individual, then only a modest award of damages may have been appropriate. I also bear in mind that the most seriously defaming words for which the 4^th defendant is responsible for having published, in both the dossier and the website, are those contained within the original Nawa-i-Jang article, and that the previous award of damages in relation to that libel took into account the newspaper’s wide circulation. However, it is clear from Associated Newspapers Limited & others v Dingle[1964] AC 371, that this is not an end to the matter, as the fact that others have libelled the claimants in other articles does not necessarily mitigate the damage caused by the 4^th defendant’s publications, albeit re-publication of the same words to the same audience will inevitably tend to cause less harm than the original publication. In this regard it is necessary to isolate, assess and compensate for the damage caused by each separately. However, in the present case, I bear in mind that the website appears to have been targeted at the local Muslim community, many of whom will not have read the original Nawa-i-Jang article when it was first published, and which is of course the environment in which the claimants live and work, and accordingly will have the most impact upon them; arguably more so than the original publication of the newspaper article. Moreover, the publication of the defamatory material on the website has taken place over a prolonged period of time, and may indeed be continuing.

I have given careful consideration to the conduct of the 4^th defendant in the course of these proceedings. I, of course, bear in mind that he represented himself. However, even allowing for a considerable degree of latitude, not only did he pursue a significant number of matters which were unrelated to the dispute concerning the mosques’ property, but his manner of doing so was such that, to an extent, this ought to be reflected in the overall award of damages in this case, as I am quite satisfied that not only did it attract further adverse attention in the local media, but it caused a significant amount of further distress and hurt to the claimants.

In my judgment the re-publication to the local Muslim community of the original Nawa-i-Jang article which contained serious allegations of fraud and corruption, not just in relation to the dispute about the mosques’ property, but in particular about serious and widespread corruption by the claimants in other circumstances, has caused very significant distress and damage to the claimants’ reputation. It is necessary for the award to reflect a just and proportionate assessment of all of the matters for which each of the claimants is entitled to be compensated. Accordingly, and taking all of these matters into account, I consider that the appropriate award of damages in this case is that awarded to the claimants in the previous case which arose out of largely the same subject matter, namely in the sum of £45,000.00.

Accordingly there will be judgement for each of the claimants against the 4^th defendant in the sum of £45,000.00, together with an injunction restraining the 4^th defendant from further publishing the words for which he has been found liable or any similar words defamatory of the claimants. The claims against the 1^st, 2^nd and 3^rd defendants are dismissed.