Zainab Ali is likely in contempt of court

[chrisbeach]

Zainab Ali (Scala Center's "community representative") is a key instigator of this defamation and mobbing of Jon Pretty:

On 1st March 2024, the UK High Court examined the actions of Ali and several others and ordered them to pay damages and costs to Jon Pretty, after it was revealed that "The Defendants [Ali and co] accept that they have never had any evidence to support the allegations apart from the two unverified claims published in coordination with the Open Letter. They were never in a position to make any informed judgement on the truth of the allegations, and did not seek clarification on any of the allegations from the Claimant."

The court ruled Zainab Ali:

A. Will not publish or cause or permit to be published the words complained of in defamation at paragraph 3 of the Particulars of Claim in these proceedings, or any words to the same or similar defamatory effect in respect of the Claimant; and
B. Will not instruct, encourage or permit any third party to do so on my behalf.

However, the repo remains up, and Ali is clearly recorded as the instigator.

Contempt

Zainab Ali is therefore likely in contempt of court for the following reasons:

Undertaking to the Court — Clause A of the Order states that the defendants (including Zainab Ali) undertake not to publish or cause or permit to be published the defamatory words or “any words to the same or similar defamatory effect in respect of the Claimant”

1. Maintaining a public GitHub repository that contains the same or similar words would clearly amount to “causing or permitting” publication. This includes passive hosting: even if she does not actively share it, leaving it accessible to the public is continuing publication under UK defamation and contempt principles. Penal Notice — The order explicitly warns that failure to comply with the undertakings may result in being “held to be in contempt of court and imprisoned or fined, or [having] assets seized.”
2. Effect of the undertaking — In English law, a party who gives an undertaking to the court is personally bound by it. A breach is treated in the same way as a breach of an injunction.
3. Continuing to make defamatory material publicly available after giving such an undertaking has repeatedly been held to constitute contempt (see cases such as Attorney General v Punch Ltd [2002] UKHL 50 and Z Ltd v A-Z and AA-LL [1982] QB 558).
4. Third-party publication — Clause B extends the undertaking to prohibiting the defendants from “instructing, encouraging or permitting any third party” to publish the material. So, even if someone else is hosting the letter, she must not facilitate or allow that.

Consequences

1. Imprisonment. The court can impose a term of imprisonment of up to two years under section 14 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981. In most first-offence cases of civil contempt (especially where the breach can be remedied quickly, e.g. by taking content down), courts usually impose a suspended sentence or a short term (days or weeks), rather than the maximum two years. Example: In Solodchenko v Russia Today Ltd [2021], a short suspended sentence was imposed for failing to remove defamatory content. Imprisonment is more likely where the contemnor (a) refuses to comply, (b) acts deliberately or defiantly, or (c) shows no remorse.
2. Fine. The court can impose a fine — potentially a substantial one — especially where imprisonment is deemed disproportionate. The amount depends on the severity of the breach, the financial means of the defendant, and whether there was wilful defiance or just negligence. It could range from a few thousand pounds to tens of thousands, depending on the case.
3. Seizure or sequestration of assets. The order itself warns that assets may be seized. This is done through a “writ of sequestration”, which allows court-appointed officers to take control of a contemnor’s assets until they comply with the order. This is rare, but it’s used if someone persistently refuses to comply or tries to frustrate enforcement.
4. Costs and further proceedings. Even if imprisonment or fines aren’t imposed, the claimant (Jon Pretty) could apply to enforce the order, and Zainab Ali could be ordered to pay his legal costs for that application — which could easily be thousands of pounds more.

Aggravating vs. Mitigating factors

• Aggravating factors (increase punishment):

  • Continued hosting or republication after being warned.
  • Statements suggesting defiance or dismissal of the court order.
  • Failure to apologise or cooperate.

• Mitigating factors (reduce punishment):

  • Immediate removal of the material once notified.
  • Apology or explanation showing misunderstanding rather than defiance.
  • Cooperation with enforcement (e.g., confirming deletion of copies, requesting takedowns from mirrors).