Reynolds V Times Newspapers LTD

1
Reynolds V Times Newspapers LTD
2
Parties

• Plaintiff Reynolds, former Irish prime minister
• Defendant Times Newspapers LTD

3
Facts

• Following the resignation of Irish Prime Minister
  Reynolds on Nov. 17, 1994, the British Mainland
  edition of the Sunday Times published an
  article entitled Goodbye gombeen man (Irish term
  for usurer) on Nov. 20. Mr. Reynolds alleged
  that the article falsely accused him of
  deliberately and dishonestly misleading the Irish
  Parliament, his own cabinet, and the minister of
  foreign affairs by suppressing and withholding
  vital information and lying about when the
  information had come into his possession.

4
Context of proceedings

• First instance the jury decided that the
  allegations made by the Times were untrue but
  awarded Mr. Reynolds no damages. The judge
  substituted damages of one penny. Reynolds
  appealed, alleging that the judge had misdirected
  the jury. The Times cross-appealed objecting to
  the judges rejection of their qualified
  privilege defense.
• The Court of Appeal The Court of Appeal set
  aside the verdict, findings and judgment of the
  trial court and ordered a new trial. It also
  decided that the Times would not be able to rely
  on qualified privilege at the retrial. The Times
  appealed the Appellate Court decision to the
  House of Lords
• The House of Lords Dismissed the Times appeal of
  the Appellate Court Decision.

5
Parties arguments

• The newspaper's contention a libellous statement
  of fact made in the course of political
  discussion is free from liability if published in
  good faith. i.e. that the writer did not
  knowingly make false statements or make the
  statements recklessly, not caring whether they
  were true or false.
• Mr. Reynolds' contention liability may also
  arise if, having regard to the source of the
  information and all the circumstances, it was not
  in the public interest for the newspaper to have
  published the information as it did.

6
The Defence of Qualified Privilege

• A privilege may exempt a person from liability
  for defamation
• Absolute privilege includes statements made
  during judicial, legislative, and other public or
  official proceedings. Nothing anyone says during
  such proceedings is actionable for libel, even if
  the statements are false, malicious, or damaging.
  
• Qualified privilege Section 15 and Schedule 1 of
  the United Kingdom Defamation Act 1996 provide a
  statutory qualified privilege for material that
  is of public concern and for the public benefit.
• Privilege can be lost if there are errors in the
  report of the hearing.

7
Traditional qualified privilege test

• Duty-interest test (Traditional) Whether there
  was an interest or duty to make the allegedly
  defamatory communication and a corresponding
  interest or duty to receive it. E.g. social
  worker reporting suspected child abuse to a
  police officer.
• Circumstantial test Were the nature, status and
  course of the material, and the circumstances of
  the publication, such that the publication should
  in the public interest be protected in the
  absence of proof of express malice?

8
Generic Privilege

• Generic privilege uses the technique of applying
  the privilege to a category or categories of
  cases. For example, extending a generic privilege
  to political speech regarding elected officials.

9
The Holding

• The court held that there is no special qualified
  privilege that applies to political speech.
• Lord Nicholls offered an illustrative ten point
  checklist which courts should apply to decide if
  the particular story satisfied the right to
  know test.

10
Ten point checklist

• The seriousness of the allegation
• The nature of the information, and the extent to
  which the subject-matter is a matter of public
  concern
• The source of the information
• The status of the information
• The steps taken to verify the information

11
Ten point checklist

• 6. The urgency of the matter
• 7. Whether comment was sought from the claimant
• 8. Whether the article contained the gist of the
  claimants side of the story
• 9. The tone of the article
• 10. The circumstances of the publication,
  including the timing

12
Discussion of the 10 Points

• 1. Most of the 10 points cut both ways
• - The more serious the allegation, the more the
  public is misinformed, but the more it may be a
  matter of public concern.
• - The court will have regard of all the
  circumstances
• Elasticity vs Unpredictability (The Chill
  Factor)
• 2. Confidential source will pose a problem for
  journalists
• If a newspaper stands on the rule of protecting
  its source, it may run the risk of what the judge
  and jury will make of the gap in the evidence.
  Lord Steyn

13
Discussion of the 10 Points

• 3. The Reynolds privilege is a defence for
  serious investigative journalism, and the tabloid
  press
• 4. Reynolds cautiously moved defamation towards a
  fault-based tort, but concentrated on the
  possible faults of journalists.
• 5. Judges may lack sympathy and/or understanding
  of the press.

14
Implications

• Rejecting the importation of the US Supreme
  Courts judgment in New York Times Co V. Sullivan
  into English law
• Sullivan principle
• 1, public officials and public issue
• 2, defamation-false
• 3, in good faith-no malice
• -did not know its false
• -not reckless disregard for truth

15
Implications

• Freedom of expression the media publisher of
  defamatory words must have a duty at least to
  establish whether or not it is responsible to
  disseminate the defamatory information
• Protection of reputation afford more protection
  to individual and corporations reputations when
  untrue and defamatory allegations are made
  against them

16
Citations

• Applied by more than 14 cases
• No case applied in Hong Kong