Murderer of Banaz Mahmod sues TV show for ‘damaging his reputation’
An uncle who ordered the murder of his niece told a court he is suing ITV as a TV dramatisation of his crimes has put him in ‘constant fear’ of being killed in prison.
Ari Mahmod, 69, ordered three of his cousins to kill Banaz Mahmod, 20, because she had left an abusive arranged marriage.
Banaz had also been seen by her family kissing a new boyfriend outside a Tube station before the killing.
Mahmod plotted the killing of his niece alongside her father, Iraqi Mahmod Mahmod, who is now 70.
They recruited a gang of thugs to rape and beat his daughter in a barbaric honour killing.
She was killed with a shoelace and her body placed in a suitcase and buried in a Birmingham garden were it lay undiscovered for three months.
Mahmod was jailed for life and ordered to serve a minimum of 17 years in 2007.
Iraqi Mahmod Mahmod and four other men were also jailed for life.
ITV dramatised the killing in ‘Honour’ starring Keeley Hawes in 2020.
Mahmod is now suing ITV for libel and defamation based on his portrayal in the TV drama and a 2012 episode of current affairs programme Exposure called ‘Banaz: An Honour Killing’
Mahmod appeared at the High Court court today (thurs) via video link from HMP Whitemoor in Cambridgeshire wearing glasses, a black t-shirt and Nike jacket, for an initial hearing regarding his claim.
Ben Gallop, representing ITV, said: ‘The claim is very striking as the claimant is a convicted murder and the claim relates to programmes the core of which, that he is guilty of the murder of his niece is not in dispute.
‘This is rare for a claim of libel as the possibly of any damage to his reputation is limited due to his pre-existing bad reputation.’
Mahmod, representing himself, started by telling the judge that English is his second language.
He suggested that the programmes had suggested that Banaz was raped and that he had ordered it or given it his blessing.
He said this has effected his family and caused him to be fearful of attack in prison.
He said: ‘The scope of negative reaction of the Kurdish community in the UK and Kurdistan to family and business is evidenced.
Referring to himself in the third person, he said: ’Prisoners attempt to hurt and attack Ari Mahmod.
‘Ari’s personal situation is lost, my family visits, no exercise, no peace of mind, in fear of attack, losing university study plus the mental and physical pressure in my life.
‘Almost all statements in the two programmes left no doubts for viewers that Ari was the ringleader for the Banaz operation and what happened to her and the allegation of rape was with Ari’s blessing and under Ari’s watch.’
He said he was portrayed as a ‘wealthy rich man’ who ordered the killing and rape.
Mahmod said he was portrayed as ‘a strong character among the Kurdish community in London.’
He said it was suggested that no one in the Kurdish community helped the police because they were scared of him and he was portrayed as a leader of ‘organised crime’.
He said in the drama he comes across as ‘cocky and confident’ in the police station and the programmes portrayed the family as ‘wealthy, controlling, and reckless’ and that he would ‘punish female members of his brother’s family’.
‘The two programmes link Ari directly and indirectly to the Banaz rape allegation.’
He said the programmes had suggested that he was involved in dragging the suitcase containing the body.
He said: ‘This means either Ari had asked others to murder and rape Banaz as part of the plan or that Ari was there when Banaz was rape and did not stop them so gave his blessing.’
Mahmod said the programmes said that Banaz was killed as an honour killing and the killers were her cousins.
‘If the murder of Banaz was in order to restore the whole family’s honour then the rape allegation is not true because if Banaz was murdered because she brought dishonour on the family then by raping her by her own family that would bring more disrespect, more dishonour to the family.
‘Two wrongs does not make one right. Which means the allegation does not stack up- it is false and misled and fabricated.
‘If the allegation is indeed proved it means the murder of Banaz was not an honour killing- if it is true she was raped it means the original case she was murdered for honour cannot be right, that was proved by a court of law at the Old Bailey.
‘So which is true, either the ITV programme is true or the judge or jury’s decision in the trial is true.
‘If that is the case the documentary is not based on a true story.
‘The claims were made in the Exposure documentary on national TV, prime time, for over two hours with a head of police and two crown prosecution members among the participants.’
Referring to himself, Mahmod said: ‘The claimant has no legal experience, no knowledge, a prisoner with no access to any legal means, fighting tooth and nail to keep himself and his family safe from attacks in prison and outside, living in constant fear as a result of the ITV documentary.
‘To be honest and frankly speaking this claim is a matter of life and death as far as I am concerned.’
He said that a prisoner had been killed by a gym bar in the past.
‘This is how things go when this kind of allegation is made against inmate.
‘Because of that I’m going nowhere, no walk, no gym, no education, nowhere, I’m staying in a very closed area just for my safety.’
He said: ‘This fight is between two unequal parties in legal means, it is not a level playing field. I have no access, I don’t know what I’m talking about, it’s from my head not a legal source.’
Mr Gallop said: ‘We say both Honour and ITV Exposure have the natural and ordinary meaning that the claimant was responsible for the murder of his niece.
‘While the claimant is responsible for and guilty of murder he did not carry out the killing with his own hands and that is clear from both programmes.
‘The rape allegation we say forms no part of the meaning of the programme in respect of this claimant.
‘It is there that someone carried out sexual violence in the moment of the murder, but not necessarily the claimant.’
He said any viewer who believed that Mahmod had ordered the rape would be choosing to select the ‘worst possible’ meaning of the programmes.
‘To read in this additional grave meaning would be unreasonable and would be to select the very worst possible reading of the text.’
He said Mahmod was portrayed as ‘the godfather figure who says she’s going to die and then this is carried out by other men’.
He said viewers of Honour were told it was a true story with some events dramatised so would not expect it to be entirely true.
‘It is not reasonable to say that the suggestion he carried a suitcase meant he was present at the murder,’ Mr Gallop said.
Responding, Mahmod said that Honour is ‘meaningless’ as it is fictional.
He said that ITV had repeated Exposure to support Honour and suggest that it is true.
He said: ‘Murder is murder, there’s been many murders in this country, it is not something unique, they’re trying to make it unique by supporting Honour with Exposure, supporting the idea that honour killings happen in the UK and that happened at the hands so Ari Mahmod- the monster.
‘I’m not saying I was accused of rape. My point is they link me to rape by different ways.
‘ITV, the famous national TV in this country, where’s the due diligence, have they done internal process to check for balance, whether they’ve harmed someone’s life and reputation as has happened to me?’
He said his family have been punished by Kurdish people and this was a cultural issue.
‘In the Islamic community rape is taboo, it is the highest level of crime, pedophilia and rape is the highest crime, higher than treason.
‘What they said is a very high risk allegation, families are executed for rape.’
He suggested there are many rapists in prison in the UK but it is rare in Kurdistan.
‘In this country so many things happen but that’s the culture of this country, in Kurdistan I have never heard of it.
‘So the court should respect that, the views of Kurdish people and respect the views of that community.’
Mr Gallop said that Mahmod was outside the one year limitation period to file a claim for defamation as the programme aired in 2020 and the claim was not made until 2023.
He said that the main publication was on ITV1 in 2020 and Mahmod had said the effect of the programme was immediate.
The barrister said that future publications on ITV streaming, Amazon Prime and Netflix did not further the harm as it had already been made available to almost the entire public by the original airing.
He said Mahmod had been unaware of the programme being put onto Netflix until he was informed during the legal proceedings.
At the beginning of the hearing Mr Justice Murray told the court there would be a two minute silence at noon to commemorate the 80th anniversary of VE day and asked Mahmod if he understood.
Mahmod replied ‘yes master’.
He later asked if he should call the judge master or judge and the judge opted for judge.
Mahmod continued reading his papers during the two minute silence.
In response to Mr Gallop’s point that he had missed the deadline to launch a libel action, Mahmod argued the programme was first on during Covid when the prison was shut down.
He said: ’The entire country and prison was shut down with no contact, no exercise, no communication.
‘We had no access to any kind of legal means in prison or legal advice.’
He said he had not filed his claim earlier because of a lack of knowledge about court procedures.
He said the programme being added to Netflix and Amazon was different to being on ITV as they are international.
‘Netflix and Amazon can be seen in my country back home, a traditional Islamic conservative country.
‘This is taboo, my family if they go back to my country to travel there there will be an instant risk on their life.’
Mahmod said he had to be put in segregation for a month after the programme and his family had to go into hiding.
He said his grandchildren had to leave the UK for their safety meaning they could no longer go to school.
He said: ‘The limitation period should not stop me making my claim because the case is very serious, it’s not financial, it’s a matter of life and death for me, my family, my children and grandchildren.’
Mr Gallop said that while it is true Netflix generally has a global reach, Honour could only be viewed on Netflix in the UK and Ireland.
He said there is no evidence the online availability of the programme had effected Mahmod.
Mr Gallop said: ‘The conviction is evidence of his general bad reputation.
‘The fact his reputation is as a murderer means he has no reputation he could genuinely seek to vindicate through these proceedings.’
Mahmod replied: ‘Mr Gallop is thinking about this culture in this country where you cannot get a job because of your past.
‘In America the President has been found guilty and is a President. In my country you are not judged by the past, you are judged by you and how much can serve in your job.
He said people in his country ‘did not react negatively one bit’ to the murder conviction and his family could travel freely.
He said it was the rape allegation which led to them being attacked and their businesses shut down.
Mahmod said: ’In my country murder is normal, after served time you have a new opportunity, new life.
’In my culture the main things they react against me was the rape allegation otherwise here my reputation did not get damaged a bit by the murder.’
He said he was also appealing his murder conviction at the high court.
Mr Justice Murray said he would hand down a judgment remotely in around a month.
