Jameel and Another v Wall Street Journal Europe Sprl - Essay Example

Name of the Student] [Name of the Professor] [Course] [Date] Jameel (Mohammed) and Another v. Wall Street Journal Europe Sprl [2006] UKHL 44; [2007] 1 A.C. 359; [2007] Dow Jones published a news item in the Wall Street Journal, wherein it described the Golden Chain, which comprised of institutions and persons that provided monetary help to Osama bin Laden. There was a hyperlink in the online version of this article that allowed the reader to access the list of such entities. Among them was the name of Jameel, a Saudi national. Jameel alleged that he had been defamed and depicted as a donor of funds to Al Qaeda and its terrorist attacks (Rowland and Macdonald). Jameel initiated a number of defamation suits against the newspaper and one of them was in the UK as the online article was accessible to English viewers. The evidence produced by Jameel was that five persons had read this article. The court of appeal held that the number of persons who had seen the article were insufficient to constitute libel as there was insufficient publicity (Rowland and Macdonald). The Wall Street Journal had published an article in its website in March 2003 claiming that Jameel had funded Osama Bin Laden. Jameel claimed that these allegations were false and produced a web link to a document supposed to have been published by the Wall Street Journal, which contained these allegations against him. Jameel brought this matter before the House of Lords in the United Kingdom (Jameel and Mahfouz (UK, 2005)). The House of Lords invalidated the previous rulings in October 2006 on an appeal from Jameel over the decision on the Wall Street Journal Europe. The House of Lords had unanimously set aside the earlier decisions in that case. Their Lordships concluded that the Wall Street Journal Europe had not published the article with a malicious intent, but had acted in the interests of the public. The Wall Street’s mention of Jameel’s company along with the other companies that funded Al Qaeda and their bank accounts was reviewed, because the United States law enforcement agencies had made a request to do so even though such information had been false. This ruling encouraged investigative journalism and served to protect investigative journalists from legal action (Jameel and Mahfouz (UK, 2005)). According to Lord Hoffmann, the article published by the Wall Street Journal Europe could be a significant contribution to counter terrorism activities, which was a serious subject of considerable importance. Annulling Jameel’s libel suit, the Law Lords ruled that the published article was sufficiently responsible and had the interest of the public safety and information in view. Therefore, the House of Lords held that the article was not libel (Jameel and Mahfouz (UK, 2005)). The Saudi Sheikh Khalid Bin Mahfouz, a fellow countryman of Jameel was awarded compensation from Pluto Press of the United Kingdom, which had published fabricated news in Michael Griffin’s 2003 Reaping the Whirlwind, which claimed that Mahfouz was a relative of Osama bin Laden and a proponent of the terrorism launched by Laden. The court had also found the United States Treasury Department guilty of having described the Muwaffaq Foundation as a branch of Al Qaeda (Jameel and Mahfouz (UK, 2005)). The Justice Lord Phillips held that there was no provision to sue web publishers in English Law. He stated that in order to sue against such publishers in the English courts, there should be a material publication in England. He also opined that the subject matter of the case was not of sufficient significance for the courts of England to spend their resources upon. Continuing in the same vein he said that the process of committing a judge and consuming the time of the jury for such a purpose would be tantamount to an abuse of the powers of the court. He also contended that the damage caused to the reputation of Jameel was minimal and in this regard a jury could award a modicum of damages to the petitioner and that the cost of an expensive and lengthy trial would be greater than the compensation that would be awarded (Jameel and Mahfouz (UK, 2005)). The House of Lords strengthened and protected investigative journalism by this landmark ruling. It serves to protect the media in the United Kingdom from libel actions. The House of Lords claimed that investigative reporting were in the best interests of the public. It also claimed that such reporting and stories were tantamount to serious and responsible journalism (FinfactsTeam). This decision of the House of Lords created new standards for trials involving libel suits in the UK and provided journalists and news agencies functioning in the UK a protection similar to that available in the United States under the First Amendment to the US Constitution (FinfactsTeam). The Wall Street Journal Europe successfully argued before the House of Lords that the fundamental objective of its article was to establish that Saudi Arabia was aiding the international action against terrorism. The Wall Street Journal further argued that it had included prominent Saudi companies in order to prove that the Saudi Arabian enforcement authorities were serious about curbing terrorism. However, the Wall Street Journal did not claim credit for the article because its reporters and sources based in Riyadh would be subjected to retaliations by the Saudi enforcement authorities. It also did not disclose the identity of its informant in the US Treasury Department, who had certified the information received from the Saudi sources as being genuine (FinfactsTeam). The decision of the lower court, which had awarded £40,000 compensation to the claimant, was overruled by the Law Lords as the trial court judge had misdirected the jury and used a wrong legal standard (FinfactsTeam). In Reynolds v Times Newspapers Ltd the former Irish Taoiseach had brought a libel suit against the news agency, because it had published a story about the events that had led to resignation (Reynolds v Times Newspapers Ltd). In that case, the court gave a ruling that was aimed at protecting serious investigative journalism having public interest. The Lords opined that the earlier decision was insufficient and there had been an incorrect application of libel law (FinfactsTeam). Their Lordships stated that it was important to ascertain whether the defendant had behaved fairly and responsibly while gathering information and publishing the same. Therefore, they ruled that the crucial elements of fairness and responsibility, which had to be applied by journalists and editors as to whether the published information was of public concern, should be of importance in deciding upon the compensation claimed for damages. If the information gathered by the journalists is fair and responsible and if it contains credible facts, then these are sufficient grounds to evade damages for libel even though the information consists of defamatory allegations (FinfactsTeam). The article that caused this libel suit stated that the Saudi authorities were monitoring the bank accounts of eminent Saudi citizens and companies on the request of the US Treasury Department in order to determine whether there was any funding of terrorist organisations (FinfactsTeam). The Law Lords stated that if the public interest defence was unsuccessful in this case, then it would have to be abandoned. The House of Lords further stated that the newspaper had acted in a responsible manner. Moreover, they opined that in the absence of evidence that the newspaper’s behaviour was careless, inconsiderate, casual or lackadaisical the professional judgment of the newspaper was to be construed to be non – defamatory. It was also stated by them that newspapers had to take all practical measures to ensure the veracity of what they were publishing and that they should attempt to provide an opportunity to the persons being named an opportunity to provide clarification. However, there could be no liability if such opportunity was not provided by the newspapers. In brief the judgment required the newspapers to approach the business of publishing articles with responsibility (Melville - Brown). The primary query to be addressed is whether the newspaper could seek exemption under the plea that it had published the article in the general interests of the public. Such a defence had been created in the case of Reynolds v. Times Newspapers Ltd. Prior to this decision, English law had favoured claimants in a defamation case instituted against newspapers (Reynolds v Times Newspapers Ltd). The Reynolds case established that a newspaper was protected from libel action if it published with the public interest in mind and it did so in a responsible manner, even if it had not been concerned with whether the information was true or false. However, with the decision in the Reynolds case the trend was reversed and the press was permitted greater freedom in publishing news that was in the public interest. This decision was extended to the Jameel case. In the US the press was protected by the First Amendment and allowed to publish articles that served the public good. This privilege was extended to the UK press by this decision. In Jameel v. Wall Street Journal Europe their Lordships clarified that wherever public interest was involved, it was the duty of the press to disseminate information and to have an interest in ensuring that the public received such information. This was to be regarded as a legal proposition and accordingly if any publication was in the interests of the public, then such duty and interest were intrinsic per se. They also opined that the defamation suit should be viewed in its entirety, so as to ascertain if the published matter had been in public interest. Another important observation made by them was that the mere fact that a judicial decision taken with sufficient time and hindsight could have resulted in a markedly different editorial decision should not jeopardize the defence. Therefore, it was imperative to focus on whether the publication was a piece of responsible journalism or not, and this was to be determined in a realistic and complaisant manner (Rares). Works Cited FinfactsTeam. UK Law Lords in landmark ruling in Wall Street Journal Europe libel case. 12 October 2006. 10 November 2007 . Jameel and Mahfouz (UK, 2005). 2006. 10 November 2007 . Melville - Brown, Amber. Law Gazette. Publish and be reasonable Jameel and others v Wall Street Journal Europe Sprl [2006] UKHL 44. 16 November 2006. 10 November 2007 . Rares, Steven. Federal Court of Australia. Speeches. Media Law Conference. Defamation and the Uniform Code. Para 37 - 39. 26 October 2006. 11 November 2007 . Reynolds v Times Newspapers Ltd. No. 4 All ER 609. 1999. Rowland, Diane and Elizabeth J Macdonald. Information Technology Law. Routledge Cavendish, P. 401. Read More