ANNEX: STATEMENT IN OPEN COURT Mothin Ali v Alex Armstrong Solicitor for the Claimant: 1. My Lord/Lady, I appear for the Claimant in this matter, Mothin Ali. 2. The Claimant, Mr Ali, has been an elected councillor for Gipton and Harehills at Leeds City Council since 2014 and has served as Deputy Leader of the Green Party of England and Wales since September 2025. 3. The Defendant, Alex Armstrong, is a British television and radio presenter, and political commentator who, at the time of the publication of the post complained of, appeared as a commentator on BBC News, BBC Radio, TalkTV and GB News. He attracts a wide audience interested in politics. 4. On 18 and 19 July 2024, the Defendant published two separate posts (the “Posts”) on X (formerly Twitter), which were viewed over 3.1 million times. The context of the publications is that they occurred against the backdrop of social unrest and rioting in the Harehills district of Leeds, a deprived and multicultural area. The unrest involved violent confrontations between local residents and police officers and widespread disorder in the streets. The Harehills riots were reported in national news bulletins at the time. 5. On or around 18 July 2024, the Defendant saw a photograph of the Claimant at the riot circulating on social media with captions indicating he was participating in it. The Defendant states he saw these posts and mistakenly understood the Claimant was taking part in the riot himself. He subsequently published the two Posts complained of, both of which re-published the photograph. 6. The Defendant’s first Post conveyed the defamatory meaning that the Claimant had participated in the riots. The second Post conveyed the defamatory meaning that the Claimant had dishonestly sought to distance himself from the rioting, but had been caught on camera taking part in it. 7. The Defendant subsequently learnt that the Claimant was at the riot in an effort to calm the protestors. On 20 July 2024, he published a further post on X clarifying the position. 8. Specifically, and as the Defendant accepts, on the night in question, a senior officer in the local constabulary had reached out to the Claimant in his capacity as an elected councillor. The officer requested the Claimant’s assistance at the scene of the riots, specifically that he uses his position of trust in the community to assist the police in quelling the unrest and bring about peace on the streets. The Claimant duly obliged. He attended the scene, appealed for calm, acted as a liaison between police and the community, escorted members of the public away from danger and put out fires himself. The Claimant put himself in harm’s way in order to protect his community. 9. Naturally, the publication of the Posts to millions of people caused the Claimant significant damage and distress. In any context, the dissemination of a wholly false allegation of involvement in social unrest is exceptionally serious, carrying an implication of criminal misconduct and obvious social stigma. The allegation was more harmful given the Claimant’s position as an elected official. It is difficult to conceive of allegations more damaging to a public official’s reputation than that he participated in disorder within the community that elected him, and subsequently made dishonest public statements about his role in such events. Naturally and foreseeably, given Mr Armstrong’s influence and the size of his platform, the colourful but entirely false allegation published by the Defendant and other commentators was duly picked up and published even more widely. 10. Since the false statements circulated online, the Claimant has been approached in the street on numerous occasions by individuals who have recognised and challenged him, often forcefully and in strong language, about what they understood to have been his role in the riots. He has also suffered vile racist abuse online. This has caused the Claimant significant harm, upset, distress, and embarrassment. 11. The Defendant accepts that the Posts are false and defamatory and should never have been published. The Claimant was not involved in the disorder or violence in any way and, on the contrary, he was working to bring an end to the disorder within his community. The Defendant deeply regrets the statements made and is here today to apologise unreservedly to the Claimant for the Posts. 12. In recognition of the wholly false and serious nature of these defamatory allegations, and the harm they have caused, the Defendant has made an offer of amends pursuant to section 2 of the Defamation Act 1996 and has agreed to settle this claim by paying substantial damages and the Claimant’s legal costs and to join in the making of this statement. ***************************************************************** Solicitor for the Defendant: 13. My Lord/Lady, on behalf of the Defendant, I accept all that my friend has said and repeat the Defendant’s regret that these Posts were ever made. In particular, the Defendant accepts that the Claimant did not have any culpable part in the Harehills riots, nor was he dishonest about his role. 14. The Posts in question have been withdrawn, and the Defendant is happy to apologise to the Claimant for the serious harm to his reputation and his distress. ******************************************************************* Counsel for the Claimant: 15. My Lord/My Lady, in the circumstances, and in the light of the acknowledgement given, and the payment of substantial damages to the Claimant, the Claimant is content to let the matter rest.