Muslim leader loses bid to sue Donald Trump over 'radicalised London' claim


A Muslim political leader has lost a legal battle over Donald Trump's claim that parts of London are so radicalised that Metropolitan Police officers fear for their lives.

Kamran Malik, and his east London-based Communities United Party, was seeking £10 million damages against the would-be US president for allegedly defaming Muslims living in the Green Street and Romford Road area of Forest Gate.

In a bid to justify his comments last December that Muslims should be barred from entering the US, Trump said parts of London and Paris were so "radicalised" that police officers were scared.

Kamran Malik (John Aston/PA)

Malik said that Trump's comments had the potential to affect the trust and confidence that Muslims in his part of London had built with non-Muslim friends and business partners.

He wanted permission to proceed with his claim by serving Trump out of the jurisdiction in the USA or deeming him to have been served in Scotland at his Turnberry golf course business.

On Thursday at London's High Court, Master Victoria McCloud ruled that Malik's case was not actionable.

She said that Trump's comments were not capable of being the subject of a defamation claim "even if what was said by him caused real upset and a sense of injustice to a section of the London community and more widely.

 Sadiq Khan (Tae-Gyun Kim/AP)

"It is important that in dismissing this case this court is not understood to be endorsing or making any judgment on the merits of comments such as those in this case which have already been roundly condemned by among other people both the former Prime Minister and the Mayor of London."

She said there were breaches of procedural and legal requirements in how the defamation case was put and Malik's claims under the European Convention on Human Rights, the Equality Act and the Racial and Religious Hatred Act also failed for legal reasons.

She added that even if the case was not struck out, she would have refused permission on the basis that the claim did not have a reasonable prospect of success.

Malik, who was not in court, was ordered to pay £35,000 costs and refused permission to appeal although he can re-apply to the Court of Appeal.