UK: Privilege, And This Time We Mean It

Last Updated: 17 May 2007
Article by Adam Speker

In 1999, the House of Lords in Reynolds v Times Newspapers Limited recognized a privilege defence for public interest journalism. Liberalising the law doesn’t always achieve the desired effect, however, and in the more recent Jameel v Wall Street Journal their Lordships restated the principle. Defamation practitioner Adam Speker of 5 Raymond Buildings explains the background and where we are now

The journalist and one time libel litigant Adam Raphael ended on a pessimistic note his 1989 book, My Learned Friends, An Insider’s View of the Jeffrey Archer Case and other Notorious Libel Actions. He wrote:

‘The scene is thus set for many more years of wrangling and many more libel millionaires. But who really benefits? Neither the public nor the press. Neither plaintiffs nor defendants. Ogden Nash got it right: ‘Professional people have no cares. Whatever happened they get theirs’.’

Journalists will seldom if ever be happy with the state of the libel laws in England but much has changed since 1989. Jeffrey Archer has been exposed as a liar, sent to prison and had to pay back his libel damages. The eye-watering jury awards of the past are now rare, as damages have generally decreased owing to the interventions of the Court of Appeal. The changes to civil procedure have resulted in fewer trials. There is now a defence of public interest for newspapers. Perhaps for Mr Raphael and Ogden Nash the most surprising development would be the introduction into this field of conditional fee agreements and costcapping, which has meant that solicitors and barristers are no longer always getting theirs.

Good news

It is just one of those developments - the public interest defence - which is the focus of this article. The recent House of Lords decision in Jameel v Wall Street Journal 1 is good news for journalists although it is neither new nor radical. It is a restatement of the liberalising judgment of the House of Lords in Reynolds v Times Newspapers Ltd 2, which in 1999 recognised a common law qualified privilege defence for public interest journalism to the world at large, but it should breathe new life into Reynolds since this latest message from that House is that the new defence it recognised has been too restrictively applied at first instance.

The impact of Jameel should not be seen in isolation from the other recent developments in media law. Lord Hoffman said at [38] that, ‘until recently, the law of defamation was weighted in favour of claimants and the law of privacy weighted against them. True but trivial intrusions into private life were safe. Reports of investigations by the newspaper into matters of public concern which could be construed as reflecting badly on public figures domestic or foreign were risky. The House attempted to redress the balance in favour of privacy in (Naomi) Campbell v MGN 3 and in favour of the press to publish stories of genuine public interest in Reynolds. But this case suggests that Reynolds … has had little impact upon the way the law is applied at first instance. It is therefore necessary to restate the principles’ .

In addition to the shift in the law’s treatment of the private and the public, there should be awareness of the appellate decisions on the test to be applied for interim injunctive relief to restrain media publications4 and the correct test to apply. The latter requires balancing the competing rights under Articles 8 (respect for private and family life) and 10 (freedom of expression)5 as well as important decisions from Strasbourg confirming the extent to which Article 8 can give protection to an individual’s reputation6 and freedom from harassment and intrusion by the press7. Whilst Jameel has had parts of Fleet Street dancing, it is likely that the Campbell decision (and subsequent case law) will have a greater impact upon journalism in this country.

The tests, old and new

English defamation law has long been seen as claimant friendly. To establish a prima facie cause of action a claimant merely has to prove that defamatory words that refer to him were spoken or published to at least one third party. If so, they are presumed to be false and to have caused damage. The burden shifts to the defendant to show that the words are true or protected by law in some other way. Before 1999, there was very little protection if it was not possible to prove the statements were true.

The House of Lords decision in Reynolds, directly influenced by the imminence of the Human Rights Act 1998, was intended to bring English law into line with the Strasbourg jurisprudence, which stressed both the high value to be attached to political speech and the vital role played by the press in a democratic society. The House unanimously rejected an argument by The Times which would have recognised a new subject matter category of qualified privilege whereby all political information would be protected whatever the circumstances (subject to malice). Instead, building upon the traditional common law principles of duty and interest, the House of Lords decided in favour of a qualified privilege defence for responsible journalism covering stories of significant public interest, political or otherwise. Giving the lead speech, Lord Nicholls acknowledged the vital role of the press and identified ten indicative factors that would assist the court to judge whether the material complained of was the product of responsible journalism in the public interest, such that privilege should be accorded. Such factors included the tone of the article and whether comment was sought from a claimant before publication. Lord Nicholls recognised that the elasticity of such a defence would mean some uncertainty but he thought that ‘over time, a valuable corpus of case law will be built up.’ By this means, there were introduced into English libel law, new concepts which became known as ‘Reynolds privilege’, ‘responsible journalism’ and the ‘Nicholls factors’.

High hopes

Some academics and lawyers in other common law jurisdictions criticised this solution, but it was, unsurprisingly, welcomed on Fleet Street as the dawning of a new age. Here were judges who appeared to understand that the press ‘discharges functions as a bloodhound as well as a watchdog’ and who stipulated that the ‘court should be slow to conclude that a publication was not in the public interest… any lingering doubts should be resolved in favour of publication.’ Hopes were high.

‘Reynolds privilege’ succeeded on its next outing. Despite George Carman Q.C.’s submissions that there would be ‘champagne corks popping in Wapping’ if the Yorkshire Post was entitled to privilege for an article warning that a local karate company was selling ‘rip-off’ lessons, Sir Oliver Popplewell upheld the new defence at trial8.

It was not to last. There were well publicised defeats for the newspapers in the cases involving the politician and (subsequently) Celebrity Big Brother contestant George Galloway MP, the former Liverpool goalkeeper Bruce Grobbelaar and the international businessman Gregori Loutchansky. Ironically, its infrequent successes have been in cases where the courts have developed a sub- specie of the defence to protect what has been described as ‘neutral reportage’ where the mere fact that allegations were being made was in the public interest even if verification (one of the Nicholls criteria) was impossible.

A Reynolds defence had been successful at first instance or on appeal five times out of the seventeen in which the defence had been adjudicated upon by the court.9Of the ten failed Reynolds defences, four were disposed of as unviable before trial10 and six failed at trial11. As for the others, one settled before determination after it was deemed arguable12 and another which had been struck out at first instance was reinstated by the Court of Appeal before the case settled.13

Those statistics led Lord Hoffman in Jameel to consider that ‘Reynolds has had little impact upon the way the law is applied at first instance’ and it was necessary to re-state the principles.

The facts

Before considering those principles the facts in Jameel were as follows. The Wall Street Journal (‘WSJ’) reported that the Saudi Arabian monetary authorities were monitoring, at the US Government’s request, certain bank accounts in connection with the witting or unwitting funding of terrorism. The Abdul Latif Jameel Group was named by WSJ as one of the account holders. The main company in the Group and its president sued for libel. The substantive defence was Reynolds qualified privilege. There was no plea of justification. At trial Eady J ruled that the plea of privilege failed. The WSJ appealed to the Court of Appeal which dismissed the appeal but on narrower grounds. The House of Lords gave permission to appeal on both the scope of Reynolds and also on the application to corporate claimants of the presumption of damage in defamation claims.

The appeal on Reynolds privilege14 was unanimously allowed for fundamentally the same reasons. Despite some reservations by Lords Bingham and Hope, the Lords reversed the decisions of the High Court and the Court of Appeal, and did not remit the case back. Unusually, therefore, the Lords overturned the decisions, both at first instance and in the Court of Appeal, on the facts, which is what they did in the Naomi Campbell case two years earlier.

The speeches in Jameel re-stated Reynolds and did not apply any different or new test. In fact, the development of a new test contended for by the WSJ – one of protection for high quality journalism that was ‘newsworthy’ - was rejected as unnecessary. According to Baroness Hale, Reynolds, properly applied, was sufficient protection for serious journalism which needed to be encouraged and not discouraged.

The decision

Lord Hoffman explained the decision in Reynolds by boiling down the test into three questions: was the subject-matter of the article as a whole in the public interest? If so, was it justifiable to include the particular defamatory allegation about the claimant? If so, were the steps taken to gather and publish the information responsible and fair? Responsible journalism was not to be judged too harshly and was not that different to concepts such as reasonable care.

Baroness Hale considered that the first question was whether or not there was a ‘real public interest in communicating and receiving information’ which did not mean ‘vapid tittle-tattle about the activities of footballers’ wives and girlfriends’. The second was whether or not the publisher had ‘taken the care that a responsible publisher would take to verify the information published.’ Such care normally required the publisher to believe the information was true and that he had done what he could to check it. This included contacting those concerned for comment.

And now?

That is all well and good but how will Jameel go on to affect defamation cases generally? Even without this re-statement Reynolds has had a considerable impact upon defamation practice through the advice now given to clients, both claimants and defendants. Whether or not a Reynolds defence has a reasonable prospect of success is crucial when considering whether a claimant should issue proceedings. Whilst many such defences may ultimately fail – and it is of course usually the weak or uncertain ones which get to court - few libel claimants who are concerned about their reputations and the often serious allegations leveled at them want to spend hundreds of thousands of pounds litigating whether a journalist made enough telephone calls or spoke to a sufficient number of unnamed sources to check the story before publication. Media organisations, moreover, know that if their conduct prepublication performs well when subject to the scrutiny of the Nicholls factors, for instance by putting allegations to a potential claimant and giving proper coverage to the response, they are less likely to receive complaints and, ultimately, less likely to be the recipient of a claim form.

Some indication of the practical effect of the Jameel decision may come shortly from the Court of Appeal in the appeals in Roberts v Gable, heard in February, and Charman v Orion in March. The defence was upheld in Roberts but rejected in Charman although it was common ground that there was a public interest in both the subjectmatter and the particular allegations about which the claimant complained. The main challenges to the defence post-Jameel will still be the same although the emphasis will be shifted in a defendant’s favour. Claimants will still argue that information is not genuinely in the public interest and even if the subject-matter of the article was in the public interest it was unnecessary to include the defamatory allegations about the claimant. Few would disagree with Baroness Hale’s reference to vapid tittle-tattle about footballers wives and girlfriends not being in the public interest but, as the privacy cases demonstrate, there is no bright line between what is of public interest and what is not. The decision still leaves much room for disagreement about whether the identities of individuals alleged to be guilty of, or suspected of, criminal or anti-social behaviour should be included in a general discussion about such matters although in Jameel their inclusion was considered to be an editorial decision. With a greater value being attached by the courts to the individual’s reasonable expectation of privacy, even where the information subsequently turns out to be false, what is or is not in the public interest will not necessarily prove as clear-cut as it appeared to the House of Lords in Jameel where the allegations related to the funding of terrorism.

Again whilst the House emphasized that editorial decisions were for journalists all of the speeches stressed that the journalism had to be responsible. The WSJ employs fact-checkers. Most British publications do not. Whilst the press here will benefit from the emphasis that responsible journalism is not a gold standard, and from the dicta that weight should be given to the professional judgment of a journalist at the time, absent some indication that those judgments were made in a ‘casual, cavalier, slipshod or careless manner’ there will be arguments aplenty about what is to be condemned as casual, cavalier, slipshod or careless and as to the requirements of responsible journalism in any particular factual context. Although journalism about political figures attracts strong support in Strasbourg a reading of one of the chapters in Andrew Marr’s book, My Trade (The Dirty Art of Political Journalism) shows that it can indeed often be dirty.

Overall though, Jameel should benefit and encourage serious journalism by reducing the number of libel actions about non-private matters. If so, it remains to be seen whether the press will, as their Lordships hoped, feel less inhibited about publishing stories of immense public interest that previously would not have seen the light of day.

Footnotes

1 [2006] UKHL 44

2 [2001] 2 AC 127

3 [2004] UKHL 22; [2004] 2 AC 457

4 See, in particular, Cream Holdings v Banerjee [2004] UKHL 44; [2005] 1 AC 253

5 In re S (A Child) [2004] UKHL 47; [2005] 1 AC 593

6 See eg Radio France v France (2005) 40 EHRR 706

7 Von Hannover v Germany (2005) 40 EHRR 1

8 GKR Karate v Yorkshire Post [2000] EMLR 410

9 GKR Karate v Yorkshire Post [2000] 1 WLR 2571, Lukowiak v Unidad Editorial [2001] EMLR 1043, Al Fagih –v- HH Saudi Research & Marketing [2002] EMLR 215; Bonnick v Morris [2003] 1 AC 300, Roberts v Gable [2006] EMLR 692

10 Gilbert v MGN [2000] EMLR 680, Baldwin v Rusbridger [2001] EMLR 47, Miller v Associated Newspapers [2004] EMLR 698, McKeith v News Group Newspapers [2005] EMLR 780

11 Grobelaar v News Group Newspapers [2002] 1 WLR 3024; Loutchansky v Times Newspapers [2002] QB 783, English v Hastie (31 January 2002, Gray J), Jameel v Times Newspapers [2006] UKHL 44, Henry v BBC [2005] EWHC 2587; Galloway v Telegraph [2005] EMLR 7; Charman v Orioin Publishing [20006] EWHC 1756.

12 Sheikha Mouza al Misnad v Azzaman Ltd [2003] EWHC 1783

13 Armstrong v Times Newspapers [2005] EMLR 797

14 (see Lord Bingham at §35; Lord Hoffman at §§88-89; Lord Hope at §§110-112; Lord Scott at §144 and Baroness Hale at §151)

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
 
In association with
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of www.mondaq.com

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about Mondaq.com’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.

Disclaimer

Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.

Registration

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to unsubscribe@mondaq.com with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.

Cookies

A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.

Links

This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.

Mail-A-Friend

If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.

Security

This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to webmaster@mondaq.com.

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to EditorialAdvisor@mondaq.com.

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at enquiries@mondaq.com.

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at problems@mondaq.com and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.