Media Law Report on Reynolds Privilege Defense - Essay Example

Task MEDIA LAW REPORT ON REYNOLDS PRIVILEGE DEFENCE The law on libel and slander protects the reputation of an individual. The law provides that any person who feels that his reputation has been injured can seek redress from the courts for defamation. In defamation cases, the media usually has certain privileges that they can raise to defend themselves. The Reynolds privilege is a case that came up with the tests for deciding whether responsible journalism was upheld and if defamation was imminent concerning the circumstances. Does Reynolds privilege apply in the case study and determination of whether it amounts to defamation with application of case law? A conclusion of the determination of the facts will be made after the facts have been made and recommendations to that effect made too. In the case of Reynolds .vs. The Times Newspaper,1 The Prime Minister Albert Reynolds was accused by the British press of deliberately misleading the Irish parliament. Reynolds sued for defamation and the defendants raised qualified privilege as a defence. At the trial, the jury gave a verdict that was in favour of Reynolds and he was awarded damages. The Court of Appeal rejected this decision and instead they ordered for a re-trial and held that the said publications had not been covered under the qualified privilege. The defendants went ahead and argued that there should be some form of privilege available to newspapers regarding political matters that they publish. The House of Lords rejected this argument stating that such an argument would fail to provide adequate protection for reputation and it would make it difficult for one to discern political discussions from other serious matters. Qualified privilege was held be in existence only when the common law test is satisfied. The common law test is seen whereby a person who makes a communication has a duty or interest to make the communication to the person with whom it is made, then the person to whom the communication is made has a corresponding duty or interest to receive the said communication. It was on this case that Lord Nicholls then came up with a list to determine whether qualified privilege exists. One should take into account how serious the allegation is, the nature of the information, the urgency of the matter, whether the comment was sought from the plaintiff, whether the article contained the plaintiff’s side of the story, the tone of the article and the circumstances of the publication should be considered. This case therefore came up with what is now called the Reynolds tests, which are the tests that someone should consider when raising qualified privilege as a defence. These tests signify how important it is for the source of information to be reliable before a defence on qualified privilege can be raised. The allegations that have been made to Billie are of a serious nature first because they touch on public interest. Anything that concerns the public should be treated with utmost concern and independent investigations should be done. Qualified privilege is raised when a matter touches on public interest. In Bonnick .vs. Morris2, qualified privilege was used as a defence. The House of Lords in this case stated that the law relating to qualified privilege was consistent with article 10 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and fundamental freedoms3. It also stated that though the wordings may not be the same, the law relating to the Reynolds principle is consistent with their constitution under section 224. If the newspaper was seeking to publish the defamatory statement, it should have a factual statement. The anonymous source provided no information. There should also have been an inclusion of the defendants own statement. It was observed in this case that Reynolds principle were meant to provide a degree of responsible journalism and this is where there is a proper balance is held between the reputation of individuals and freedom of expression on matters that touch on the public. In this case, the business activities conducted by the J.C.T.C affected the cost of living of everyone. It then became a matter of legitimate public interest. The court further considered that the fact that Mr. Bonnick was not in office as the managing director of a government office became a matter of public interest. In view of all these factors, the House of Lords held that the principle of qualified Journalism prevailed as the circumstances were satisfied as responsible journalism. Billie publishing the allegations could involve the public as their safety is being compromised thereby affecting their daily lives. The second reason as to why the allegations should be of a serious nature is the number of people who are expected to receive the information. The publications are likely to be read by 50% of the population making the matter to be one of serious magnitude. In GKR Karate Limited .vs. Yorkshire Post5, the defendants published materials that related to the trading habits of the claimants. A journalist had investigated the matter. The allegations that had been made were not serious and the readers of the article were small. The defendant’s source was reliable and their tone was not excessive. The defendants pleaded privilege under the defences set out in Reynolds case and the same was granted. The court of appeal held that privilege is to be assessed by the facts that are known to the defendants at the time, the circumstances that prevailed at the time of the publication. In this case, the material that Billie would publish is likely to be serious, as it would be read by many people and because of the allegations that are made. The allegations that have been made are serious as they amount to an injury in the reputation of a police officer who is framed for being corrupt as is seen in the above case. The principles in Reynolds case require that there should be sufficient evidence. What is sufficient evidence? This implies that the information that is to be relied upon should be sufficient. There should be enough proof that supports the allegations that the police officer is indeed receiving bribes. This evidence should be justifiable capable of being relied upon. The source of the information should also be able to be relied upon. Finally, the evidence of the police officer who is said to be corrupt should also be sought. This was supported in Galloway .vs. Telegraph Group Limited6, the defendants made an appeal against a decision that had been given for an award of damages in a libel claim that had been made in favour of Mr Galloway a member of parliament. The claimant had been accused of receiving money from Iraq and the defendants stated that their sources were from a Government office in Baghdad that had been damaged. The trial judge held that the statements that had been made were defamatory. The defendants alleged that they were entitled to make a report on the findings of the documents and to fill in information about the claimant. Further, they stated that the said information was protected by privilege under the Reynolds case. The court of appeal dismissed these allegations stating that the statements that were made were entitled to be facts which could be justified and which were privileged. The opinion that is received also matters, the way the publications will be made ought to be neutral and they should not point out that the police officer committed the allegations. Instead, the opinion of the police officers and that of Peter Jones should be published so that in the end, the publication is neutral and privilege can be raised. The following was shown in the case of Jameel and others .vs. Wall street Journal; the courts took a more restrictive approach. In this case the respondent published a material that carried very serious news about international politics business and finance. The article was headed “Saudi officials monitor certain bank accounts.” The article suggested in its first paragraph that Saudi Arabian Monetary Authority, The United Kingdom’s Central Bank were following orders from United States law enforcement agencies monitoring bank accounts associated with prominent business men to prevent them to be used in funding terrorist organisations. A list of the companies and individuals were given in the second paragraph. The jury found that the article was defamatory, as the newspaper did not seek to justify the material that was complained of. The Court of Appeal held that the material that was reported was neutral and therefore it qualified as privilege. Opinion can also be relied upon once admitted in evidence, as it becomes part of the case. The officer’s opinion if included as part of the case can be relied upon as was seen in the case of Charman .vs. Orion7. A former detective constable of the Metropolitan Police Department claimed that he had been defamed in a book called Bent Coppers that had been published by Orion Publishing Group Limited. The Trial Judge held that an ordinary reader could not be able to tell if the book referred to Mr. Charman being guilty of corruption in while in office. A separate trial was conducted and it was held that there was insufficient evidence as Mc Lagan relied on opinion evidence from other police officers and those opinions ceased being private when they were at the pre-trial stage as the police officers states that indeed Redgrave was involved in corrupt activities. The appeal was allowed as the court held that Mc. Lagan had demonstrated the required standards for responsible journalism. As long as the information was received before an acquired knowledge, the defence of privilege can suffice. The allegations made against Peter Jones have been received before an acquired knowledge and thus qualified privilege applies. The same principle was applied in the case of Loutchansky .vs. Times Newspaper8 where it was held that a publisher cannot rely on Reynolds Defence after an acquired knowledge. In this case, the claimant was a businessperson who had been accused of money laundering and engagement in criminal activities. The defendants relied on sources that they could neither identify nor justify and in Flood .vs. Times Newspaper9 the issue was whether the original publication was protected by Reynolds Privilege. The claimant was a police officer in the Metropolitan Police Service and the journalists who was working on the case had been informed that Russian Oligarchs had paid some of the police officer money in exchange for information about extradition requests and in 2006 the times newspaper published information under the heading, Detective accused of taking bribes from Russian exiles. It was held that the information obtained until when the defendant obtained the report that the Independent Police Complaints Commission had exonerated the claimant was privileged because of the information obtained from the police officers. Further, it was held that the publications that proceeded after the publication of the I.P.C.C report did not amount to responsible Journalism because the website article was not updated to show that the claimant had been exonerated. A journalist should ensure that his source is reliable. In this case, Billie should make his own investigations to ensure that the information he is getting is reliable. Thos was shown in Seaga .vs. Harper10 the appeal was dismissed because the S failed to confirm the reliability of the sources that they relied upon before they disseminated the said information; therefore, they were unable to raise the defence in Reynolds case. The privilege is meant to extend to third parties and in this case being any person publishing any material that is meant for public interest to satisfy the conditions put forth by Lord Nicholls for responsible journalism. The information can be published as long as it does not interfere with the rights of the claimant. It should not deny the claimant what he is entitled to.The Human Rights Act also has a special provision in section 12 which apply when a court wants to grant any relief that might affect the right to expression under the convention rights. The court must first regard freedom of expression as important and where the proceedings relate to material which the respondent claims, or which appears to the court, to be journalistic, literary or artistic material11. The court shall look at the following: (a) The extent to which the material has, or is about to, become available to the public; or it is, or would be, in the public interest for the material to be published; (b) Any relevant privacy code. In another case, there was a short news programme that was broadcast as part of the news and it was held that the cost-capping jurisdiction should not be utilised in a way that would deny the claimant a right of entitlement to the C.F.A in which she is statutorily entitled. This was the case of Henry .vs. BBC12. Conclusion When one raises a defence of public interest, you must be able to justify your publications in order for a defence to suffice. In Malik .vs. Newspost Limited and Other13 it was held that the Defence of Qualified Privilege was not available to the D’s as the publications could not be referred to as investigative journalism as required. It was held that the subject matter was within the public concern but D3 was merely asserting the allegations without any justification. Failure to take response from C or come up with any corroborative defence was not sufficient for them especially since they relied on the public interest defence. Qualified privilege as seen only works in circumstances whereby the matters alleged are serious in nature, they are of the public concern and they can be justified in order for them to be relied upon. In the case of Radu .vs. Houston14 the issue was whether the publication that was complained of was covered under the qualified privilege. The complainant was the husband of Princess Margarita whose father was the former king of Romania. In 2004, an article was published under the headings, “Scandal in Romania as Princess Margarita’s husband is branded an imposter” in the Royalty Monthly magazine. The said article had been edited by the first defendant and published by the Second Defendant. The claimant alleged that the readers would be led to understand that Urkunde was not genuine. Additionally the claimant stated that there was also another allegation to the effect that in the former regime he was a member of the Romanian secret police. The court held that the article did not seek to include the claimant’s side of the story in relation to the forgery of secret police allegations. The article did not raise any questions but instead it made the impression that there was a case against the claimant therefore the article did not satisfy the criteria for responsible journalism. The source that Billie seeks to rely upon should be reliable and on top of that, he should be able to carry out his own investigations that should include questioning Peter Jones on the alleged statements to seek his opinion too. This will lead to a responsible publication. Recommendations There should be a way of resolving the laws that collide with the Reynolds qualified privilege principle. The European convention on Human rights and fundamental freedoms should not collide with the Reynolds principle. A mechanism should be put in place to ensure that they operate together especially with the international conventions The principle of neutrality should be expounded more as it is not included in the Reynolds test but it forms a basis for responsible journalism. Neutrality is not available as part of the test in Reynolds case but we see that some courts have placed reliance on it in order to determine responsible journalism, the same should then be encompassed in the Reynolds test if courts are upholding it. Bibliography Article 10, European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Bonnick v Morris [2003] 1 AC Retrieved on 5 December 2011 from < http://www.5rb.com/docs/Bonnick-v-Morris%20PC%2017%20June%202002.pdf> Charman v Orion [2007] EWCA Civ 972, [2008] 1 All ER 750 Retrieved on 5 December 2011 from < http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2007/972.html> European Convention on Human Rights, Article 12 Flood v Times Newspaper [2009] EWHC 2375 (QB); [2010] EMLR 8 Retrieved on 5 December 2011 from < http://www.5rb.com/case/Flood-v-Times-Newspapers-Ltd> Galloway v Telegraph [2004] EWHC 2786 Retrieved on 5 December 2011 from GKR Karate v Yorkshire Post [2000] 1 WLR 2571; [2000] 2 All ER 931; [2000] EMLR 396 Court of Appeal Retrieved on 5 December 2011 from < http://www.5rb.com/case/GKRKarate-v-Yorkshire> Henry v BBC [2005] EWHC 2787 and [2006] EWHC 386 Retrieved on 5 December 2011 from < http://www.5rb.com/case/Henry-v-BBC> Loutchansky Times Newspapers [2001] EWCA Civ 1805; [2002] QB 783; [2002] 2 WLR 640; [2002] 1 All ER 652; [2002] EMLR 241 Court of Appeal Retrieved on 5 December 2011 from < http://www.5rb.com/case/Loutchansky-v-Times-Newspaper> Malik v Newspost [2007] EWHC 3063 (QB) Queen's Bench Division Retrieved on 5 December 2011 from < http://www.5rb.com/case/Malik-v-Newspost> Radu v Houston [2007] 2735 Retrieved on 5 December 2011 from < http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1999/45.html> Reynolds v Times Newspapers [2001] AC 127 Retrieved on 5 December 2011 from Seaga v Harper [2008] UKPC 9 Retrieved on 5 December 2011 from < http://www.davenportlyons.com/news/news-stories/543/> The Constitution of Jamaica Read More