There are numbers of defences that journalists can take in order to avoid a costly libel action against their stories.
One of them, justification, as a defence means that a journalist has to prove in court that the libel statement is true. To justify their point they need to use relevant evidence. The reason for why justification is a difficult defence is because the claimant who started a defamation action against the publisher doesn’t have to prove whether the statement is true or false, it is in a publisher’s business to make sure they have a proof to defend their story.
Fair comment, however protects published articles which were just pure comments, rather that factual information. In order to be able to seek this defence, the comment has to be recognisable as opinion. It should not be perceived as factual allegation, but it has to be based on true facts. The subject commented on has to be a matter of public interest.
Qualified Privilege is a type of defence again libel taken in defamation actions. It is also available in situations where it is considered important that the facts should be known in the public interests. There are two types of QP: Statutory qualified privilege and Common Law qualified privilege.
Statutory qualified privilege can be used in certain circumstances, such as court reporting, public and council meetings reporting and reports of police statements. The published report has to be accurate, fair and free of malice. There is also a requirement for Statutory qualified privilege which states that the matter published must be a matter of public concern, the publication of which is for the public benefit.
However, Privilege at common law can be applied in situations where the law protects defamatory statements that are untrue, for the convenience of the public. For example, it applies when a person makes a defamatory statement in the performance of legal, moral, or social duty to a person who has corresponding duty or interest in receiving it.
The Reynold’s defence includes 10 points, which protect published material, which was then taken as defamatory, provided that it was a matter of public interest and that it was the product of ‘responsible journalism’
10 point test includes:
1.The case has to be serious- the more serious allegation, the more protection will be applied.
2.The nature of information
3.The source of information
4.The status of information
5.Evidence is essential
6.The urgency of the matter
7.A comment from the claimant is needed
8.The tone of the article- it has to be written in a balanced language
9.It has be to published immediately
10.A claimant has to have a chance to deny it.
The Galloway case:
The Daily Telegraph lost the case after making serious defamatory allegations against George Galloway, including elements of malice with no Justification, comment or QP. The reason for losing the case was that journalists failed the ’10 point test’, mainly because the paper did not put all its allegations to Galloway for him to deny before the information was published.
Here are just rough notes taken in the last law lecture. I also used McNae's- Essential Law For Journalists to help me write and understand the notes.
Hi Justi
ReplyDeleteWell, another set of rules to work by, yet more commandments, and I think that they are really helpful and if retained and consulted before reporting or publishing, then trouble can be avoided. It is just the actual process of putting learning into practice all the time which can be difficult until it becomes as natural as breathing to know the rules. It is all very involved. It is the same with any new job and practice makes perfect.
In that, it seems ridiculous that Galloway's case was not seen as a total risk by editors at The Telegraph, although they may have thought it worth the risk to get their story out there.
I think,- that it is 'There ARE a number of defences' in your initial paragraph, that being plural to defences.
On the other huge story of this week, I wonder if you have any Libyan students? Well, we can say what we like about Gaddafi but his apparent lynching hangs heavy on my beliefs, especially as he appeared well enough to stand trial. Overall he would have had the same punishment meted out I guess,- death, but it is a humanitarian ideal for me that 2 wrongs do not make a right and the biblical 'eye for an eye' etc is wrong. 'Any man's death diminishes me/ because I am involved in the whole of mankind/Therefore send not to ask for whom the bell tolls/it tolls for thee' , was written by John Donne. I think that had Gaddafi been killed in a fair exchange of fire well, ok but he was not fighting. They will say it was an exchange of fire however. Like Galloway's case on another level, we should all have the right of defence and trial.
Enough of that, best love, keep the blog coming, love you Cait XXX