Reynolds v Times Newspapers

"Reynolds v Times Newspapers" [2001] 2 AC 127 is a case of the House of Lords concerned with the qualified privilege of publications made for the public benefit. It is a defence to the civil action of defamation.

This defence applies in cases of libel where it is clear journalists have a duty to publish allegations even though they turn out be wrong. This is known as the ‘Reynolds Defence’ from a House of Lords case ("Albert Reynolds v Sunday Times") in 1999. This means that journalists have a defence when they make a mistake as long as they are not motivated by malice. But the courts will investigate the conduct of the journalist and the content of the publication.

A Privy Council ruling has also suggested that the courts should investigate what the journalist intended to write as opposed to the actual defamatory meaning of the publication.

The judges will evaluate it in the light of Lord Nicholls’ 10 criteria that he set out in his ruling. They included the seriousness of the allegation, the source, the steps taken to verify it, the urgency of the matter, whether the claimant was asked to comment and give his side of the story, and the tone of the article.

The ruling was later affirmed by the House of Lords in Jameel v. Wall Street Journal Europe, where Lord Hoffmann, giving the lead judgment, stated that Lord Nicholls' criteria were not to be seen as obstacles or hurdles that any journalist had to overcome in order to avail him or herself of the privilege.

Unfortunately for journalists only judges can decide whether a publication is entitled to this class of qualified privilege defence.

ources

* [http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199899/ldjudgmt/jd991028/rey01.htm Judgment on the UK Parliamentary web-site]