news details |
|
|
| A new era of media freedom? | | |
Hasan Suroor
Britain's highest court has ruled that newspapers can use "public interest" as a defence against defamation.
BRITAIN'S PETRIFIED public figures are bracing themselves for a new era of media intrusion into their lives following a ruling by the country's highest court which, some believe, could fling the door open for newspapers to print virtually anything in the name of "public interest."
Henceforth, journalists will not risk prosecution for libel for publishing potentially defamatory allegations that later turn out to be untrue provided they can show that at the time they decided to publish them they honestly believed these to be true and in the public interest.
In a judgment that the media have unanimously hailed as a "victory" for free press and a long-overdue kick in the teeth of Britain's fusty libel laws, five of the country's most senior judges have granted journalists the right to publish defamatory allegations as part of their duty to raise matters of public interest. They held that fear of libel need not discourage them from reporting issues of substance and public importance so long as they acted in good faith and with responsibility.
The key test in deciding libel in future would be whether a newspaper or a media organisation behaved "fairly and responsibly in gathering and publishing the information." If they did behave fairly and responsibly and the allegations were in public interest, then it would not matter if they were defamatory and could not be proved.
While deciding a libel case, courts would still rely on the nature of sources of information behind a story and whether the information had been properly checked but the overriding test would be public interest and the editor's good sense. Courts would "normally expect that the source or sources were ones which the publisher had good reason to think reliable, that the publisher himself believed the information to be true, and that he had done what he could to check it," one of the judges said.
The judgment, which recognises the defence of "qualified privilege" by the British media for the first time without imposing too many riders, is expected to end the country's reputation as a haven for libel lawyers. Because of its stringent libel laws, Britain has tended to become the last refuge for aggrieved celebrities and other high-profile public figures when they fail to get "justice" in other countries.
This has often made British journalists feel like poor cousins of their "freer" peers elsewhere, especially in America where the media enjoy much greater legal freedom.
The Times said in an editorial that it sent out a "signal that Britain's notoriously strict libel laws must not be used for `forum shopping' by those hoping to win a libel suit here that would not succeed in America or elsewhere."
The judgment, which overturns a previous significant ruling on the subject, arose out of a dispute between The Wall Street Journal Europe and Mohammad Jameel, a prominent Saudi businessman and distinguished philanthropist who made headlines when he donated more than £5 million to the Victoria and Albert Museum to renovate its galleries of Islamic art.
Four years ago, the Journal published a story that Saudi Arabian authorities, at the request of the U.S. Government, were monitoring bank accounts of prominent Saudi citizens, including Mr. Jameel, to make sure that they were not being used to fund terrorist activities. Mr. Jameel, who owns a motor company in the U.K., denied that one his companies named in the report was monitored. He sued the newspaper and was awarded damages by the High Court. He won again when the Journal appealed against the ruling.
But last week, the House of Lords overturned the Appeals Court verdict on grounds that the newspaper had made a "serious contribution in measured tone to a subject of very considerable importance" — namely the post 9/11 anti-terror campaign. It was a piece of balanced reporting and if the allegations could not be proved it was because of the impossibility of proving covert surveillance of the kind reported by the newspaper, the judges held.
"We need more such serious journalism in this country and defamation law should encourage rather than discourage it," Lady Hale, one of the law lords said.
The ruling comes barely weeks after Tommy Sheridan, a prominent Scottish political leader, won a £200,000 damages against the News of the World, a tabloid from the Rupert Murdoch stable, for publishing allegations about his private life.
Media law experts said the Lords judgment freed serious investigative journalism from the "chilling effect" of libel action. It also allowed journalists to publish and defend stories without jeopardising their sources.
Although it has been emphasised that the ruling would not protect scurrilous reporting on the pretext of "public interest," fears remain that Britain's notoriously sensational tabloids might be tempted to seize on it to become even more adventurous in pursuit of their kiss-and-tell agenda. For them as well as their potential victims, interesting times are ahead.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
