BBC faces £100k libel trial by Tory donor over Pandora Papers Panorama

A BBC Panorama programme and story on a top Tory donor is at the centre of a £100,000 libel trial.

Lawyer turned businessman Mohamed Amersi, who has been reported to have donated over £500,000 to the Conservative Party since 2016, brought the legal action against the BBC.

The story at the heart of this dispute is from 4 October 2021 when BBC One ran a programme titled ‘Pandora Papers: Political Donors Exposed’. The public broadcaster also published an article that same day titled ‘Pandora Papers: Tory donor Mohamed Amersi involved in telecoms corruption scandal‘.

A year after this programme, Amersi lawyers at London-based Carter-Ruck filed a defamation lawsuit to the High Court’s media and communication list.

Amersi is seeking damages up to £100,000, an injunction and an order under the Defamation Act 2013 requiring the publication of a summary of the court’s judgment.

The BBC denies liability and in a reply to the claim, it indicated that if the claim was pursued, it would be relying on defences of truth and public interest pursuant to sections 2 and 4 of the Defamation Act 2013.

Last September, a judge ordered for a preliminary trial to cover the natural and ordinary meaning of each of the publications and whether the meaning of each of the publications complained of is defamatory of the claimant at common law.

This hearing actually only looked at the first issues of natural and ordinary meaning as the BBC already admitted that both are defamatory of the claimant at common law.

The parties went to a preliminary hearing on 8 December in front of His Honour Judge Lewis.

The ‘natural and ordinary meaning’ is the meaning that the words would convey to the ordinary reasonable reader who reads the entire article or publication once.

Judge Lewis noted that the BBC article was not just about specific transactions but was making a broader allegation about Amersi, and his relationship with Swedish telecoms, Telia .

The judge stated that this appears to capture the impression that would have been given to the ordinary and reasonable reader. “I agree with the defendant that the publications conveyed that there were grounds for suspecting that, during his work for Telia, Amersi had been involved in deals on its behalf which he knew or should have known were corrupt or involved corrupt payments.”

However, the judge said they were “strong” grounds, rather than the “reasonable grounds” as suggested by the broadcaster.

The judge highlighted that “what is said about the claimant in both publications is serious. Both refer to him being involved in deals that involved corrupt payments. Both make repeated references to “corruption”.

He noted that “whilst the denials to a degree diluted the strength of what was said, considering each publication as a whole, the overall impression given was one of there being strong grounds to suspect the claimant of the wrongdoing that is identified.”

The judge said he was satisfied that each publication has the following meaning: “There are strong grounds for suspecting that, during his work for Telia, Amersi had been involved in deals on its behalf which he knew or should have known were corrupt, or involved corrupt payments”. He added that “it is agreed that this meaning is defamatory of the claimant at common law.”

Commenting on the decision, a BBC spokesperson said: “We are pleased with the outcome of this preliminary hearing, and look forward to continuing to defend our journalism.”

While Amersi issued a tweet on X (Twitter) on Tuesday, writing “the truth is that I did not know and could not have known that any payments made by Telia or any third parties were corrupt, because undertaking ownership checks was not my responsibility but that of Telia’s multiple other advisors including pre-eminent law firms and financial institutions.”

He added that he was “pleased that the Judge recognised the seriousness of the charges laid at my door by the BBC and I will continue to fight to clear my name.”

This is not the first libel challenge for Amersi, he issued libel proceedings against the Conservative Middle East Council (CMEC) and former Tory MP Charlotte Leslie.

The claim was dismissed last June by Justice Nicklin and the Court of Appeal refused his permission last November to appeal that ruling.

According to the High Court claim’s system, a costs and case management conference for his case against the BBC will be listed after the 15 July.