BBC Journalists set to strike

Aren't BBC employees simply asking for what they are entitled to?

News comes this week, that BBC journalists are planning two 48 hour strikes over a huge battle concerning pensions. The National Union of journalists (NUJ) have confirmed that the strike is set to go ahead on  November 5th and 6th and again on November 15th and 16th, with the possibility of further strikes over the Christmas period.

The Union is claiming that the BBC are pushing for journalists to "pay more, work longer and receive lower pensions". This comes after 70% of BBC journalists rejected the BBC's 'final' offer. Journalists make up-to-date news items for us and have even been killed in their profession to take on this crucial role of  taking on the role watchdog. Journalists are more than news reporters. they are the voice of the people.

The NUJ have argued against the possibility of a compromise by stating that all 4,000 of their members also refuse to take on 'any additional duties or volunteer for acting- up duties as part of an indefinite work to rule.

Some of the public have aired their controversial opinions:

Joea states: 'Will we all get a refund? NO! not a cat in hell's chance. If they do not supply us with a service we should be entitled to one.'

Juba Journalist does not see a problem with the BBC coming off the air: 'Why do they need 4000 "journalists" at the BBC in the first place?  It must be hard enough squeezing in enough time for 40 of them in between all the rubbish programmes, repeats and repeats of repeats.'

Republican684 says:  'Journalists'? At the BBC? Nah, you're 'aving laff! Overpaid, creatively and intellectually redundant middle class people no one else would employ, you mean. I support most strikes but I do not support are the over-paid pretend public servants at the beeb and their constant output of crap coupled with propaganda.

How can this be said when journalists strive to make up-to-date news items that provide a talking point for a city, a nation and even the world.  More than 23 journalists alone have been killed reporting on the war in Iraq, in order to take on this crucial role of watchdog. Journalists are more than news reporters. they are the voice of the people.

Press releases

Week 5

Ministry of Justice

   who                             what                                                                                                   
All Britons may now be informed of their legal rights in their own language, if arrested abroad.
        when                    where  
Negotiations are now taking place in Brussels.


                                                                           why
The language barrier can make a criminal investigation all the more intimidating. The Government's intention is to safeguard and promote civil liberties - beyond those outside our front door.


                                                                          quote
Justice Secretary Kenneth Clarke, announced the decision to parliament today and said:


‘The Government has decided to opt in to the Directive on the right to information in criminal proceedings.  The Directive meets the criteria set out in the Coalition Agreement with regard to EU justice and home affairs measures.


‘The Government will approach forthcoming legislation in the area of criminal justice on a case by case basis, with a view to maximising our country’s security, protecting Britain’s civil liberties and preserving the integrity of our criminal justice system.’


Highway's Agency


                                                                      what
Archaeological remains dating back to the Ice age, along with Roman and Iron age have been found in the
                                 where
area between Newark and Widmerpool.


                                                                      why
The discovery was made during a Highways Agency scheme to upgrade the A46 between Newark and Widmerpool.


                                                                     quote
A46 Highways Agency project manager, Geoff Bethel , said:


"As the A46 follows the route of the old Roman road, we expected to uncover a number of artefacts from Roman Britain and we were not disappointed; but to uncover such rare flint tools dating back to the end of the Ice Age was very exciting.


"We worked very closely with English Heritage, our contractor and the archaeology teams to make sure the road route design avoided the important areas of archaeology during construction."


National Trust


      who                        what             when                      where
All Britons are to receive a bonus this spring, as the National Trust are opening its doors for free on the weekend of 20-21 March 2010.


                                                                           why
The move follows the Trust's aim to offer everyone in the country the opportunity to enjoy the fresh air and discover the outdoors.


                                                                          quote

Fiona Reynolds, Director General of the National Trust said:

“This is the perfect excuse to discover what’s on your doorstep, perhaps re-visit somewhere you pass regularly or explore somewhere totally new.”
 
“However people decide to use our ‘Bonus Time’ gift; from taking a stroll in some of the most glorious gardens our country has to offer, to walking our dramatic coastline and breathing in the unforgettable views, we can promise it will be time well spent.”




Association of Local Government


       who             what                                         when
 Councillors claim to of saved £230 million last year as a result of latest technology used to manage
                                                                                              where
services for both pensioners and the igeneration, a new report shows.


                                                                  why
The various technology used allows bin men to be more efficient, gives the public the correct bus times and keeps them informed about roadworks and planning applications. All in all, making a better community for us all to live in.


                                                                  quote
Councillor David Parsons, chairman of the Local Government Association’s Improvement Board, said:


“Whether it’s bin men working smarter, fewer phone calls to inquiry centres, freeing up staff from time-consuming checks or reducing parking ticket machine maintenance costs, making the most of modern technology and data sharing has seen huge cash savings across the country.


“This is money which can be ploughed into vital frontline services on which millions of people rely each year, and is yet another example of councils striving to be more efficient to make their stretched budgets go as far as possible.


“As well as financial savings, tapping into gadgetry has led to better communication with all members of society, young and old, and raised awareness of the services councils offer and how to get the most from them.


“It is estimated such technology and information sharing could potentially save councils up to £372 million by 2014/15. In this climate of strained budgets, councils must strive to keep reaching more residents and improving services ever more creatively, and look at more ways of working together to make these big savings.”

A journalist or an entertainer?

It was Rupert Murdoch who said that: 'We are in the entertainment business'. Some stories are entertaining due to their content, others because of the style in which they are written i.e. by the use of antidotes or the injection of humour. Considering news items are called 'stories' due to the adoption of many of the practices of story-tellers, this should come as no surprise.

This is not a new role thrust upon journalists as depicted in the 19th verse by Engel 1997:17:

Tickle the public, make em' grin,

The more you tickle the more you'll win,

Teach the public, you'll never get rich,
You'll live like a beggar and die in a ditch

Even if one of the aims, is to inform, nobody will listen, watch or read the stories if they are quite simply too dull. Therefore, tension, excitement and interest need to be created. Journalism is non-existent without an audience, and so the need to entertain becomes just as vital as the need to inform.

News outlets can receive controversy for doing this at, what the public believe are sensitive times. The ITN replayed images of the hijacked planes going into the world trade centre in time with music. The news item, broadcast the day after the September 11th attacks was deeply criticised by the Independent Television Commission as 'a tasteless offence to public feeling' (Akbar 2001).

Wells (2001) reports that insiders believe that BBC news has become 'more Madonna than Macedonia'. Former BBC war correspondent Martin Bell agrees with this belief: ' I can think of no time in my life when we needed to be better informed about the world beyond our shores, and no time when we have, in fact, been worse informed...The Palme d'Or for the dumbing down of British television goes to ITN, which was once a proud name in journalism...In hock to the advertisers, ITN set the trend by its decision, early in the 1990s, to promote an agenda of crime, celebrity and miracle cures - and to downgrade foreign news to a couple of slots a week on Tuesdays and Thursday, unless anything more sellable happened closer to home. The judgements were not editorial, but commercial.'

Channel 4 News anchor, Jon Snow has accused the ITV news of letting down democracy by eliminating serious news items in favour of more lifestyle and entertainment news (Arlidge and Cole 2001).
ITN chief executive, Stewart Purvis, believes this is nonsense and that they still are what they were at their beginning in the 1950s: 'the equivalent of a mid-market newspaper - authority with accessibility'. This is backed up to a point by research into changing trends in TV news in the last quarter of the 20th century. Barnett and Seymour found that, although there has been a decline in political coverage and a shift towards a tabloid-focused agenda, the overall picture remained 'a healthy balance of serious, light and international coverage.' Researchers have, however warned that increasing commercial pressures would threaten this balanced approach in the future.

Bob Franklin was quoted as saying: 'The history of the British press, since the emergence of popular journalism...has been a history of newspapers increasingly shifting editorial emphasis towards entertainment'.
This has not escaped the broadsheet newspapers. Take for example page eleven of the Times on Tuesday February 26th 2002. Under a 'news strapline, is a lengthy report on Kylie Minogue being voted 'best pop act' by readers of the New Musical Express, illustrated by a large photo of Kylie and her cleavage (triumphant kylie adds the brats to her brits). The two other stories on the same page concern a record by the winner of TV talent show Pop Idol and the memoirs of the late Kurt Cobain.

Matthew Arnold, 1887, believed that 'New journalism...has much to recommend it; it is full of ability, novelty, variety, sensation, sympathy, generous instincts; its one great fault is that it is feather-brained.'
In terms of entertainment values, a national survey of 25,000 adults found that, while just over a third said they relied on newspapers for information, one in five admitted they read a daily paper more for entertainment purposes (Powell 2001). The entertainment values of the public and so in turn adopted by the papers are humour, showbiz, sex, animals, crime and pictures. Holland believes that the concepts of news and entertainment are becoming more entwined: The relentless public push towards entertainment values has meant that the definition of what makes 'news' is itself constantly changing. The carefully established distinction between fact and opinion is now less easy to maintain. The need for accuracy has become dissolved into the excess of the headline, through a joke, an ironic exaggeration or an expression of outrage.
As Peter Hill, the Daily Star editor put it: 'readers are only really interested in people who are on television...And we like bottoms - because bottoms are fun.' Jeremy Gibson, the head of BBC features agrees with this: 'I would love to think that that type of documentary that didn't realise it had to entertain you as well as inform you is probably dead.' James Carey also believes that: 'Journalism can be destroyed by forces other than the totalitarian state; it can also be destroyed by the entertainment state'.

Nearly 70 years ago, FJ Mansfield recorded complaints about press sensationalism, distortion, invasion of privacy, and the reporting of sex 'beyond proper limits'. David Goodhart rejects the dumbing down idea of news items as simply elitism and romanticism: 'A combination of new media technology and social progress means, for good and ill, that common culture has gone forever. Welcome to what the critic Jason Cowley calls 'our crowded, fragmented, cultural market place'.

What the audience and journalist must remember is both the difference and presence of the informative and entertaining function concerning news items combined with the facts of a story, can be the most entertaining of all.

The increased weight given to pre-nups

Topical news story

Week 4

With 45% of marriages now winding up in the divorce courts, is it any wonder that couples are now choosing to swap the meringue cakes, month's worth of catering and huge price tags, for the 21st century lifestyle choice; cohabitation.

Statistics show that children are the ones that lose out, by having parents that are 'merely' in love, but without the 'necessary' squiggle to prove that they are 'genuinely committed'. Cynically, could the recent pro - pre- nuptial agreement decision be an attempt at reducing tax rise and so in turn, keeping the public sweet?

Couples are now entering into a contractual agreement before they are entering into marriage and so effectively are planning their divorce before they have even walked up the aisle. What a romantic gesture for any prospective bride or groom! Imagine, being approached by your prospective spouse; 'Darling, before I slip that ring on your finger, I want to decide how we will be dividing up our assets, if I happen to have an affair or find you are impossible to live with!'. This is the reality, of what many halves will have thrust upon them.

In the recent case of Radmacher v Granatino, the Supreme Court upheld the decision to enforce a pre - nuptial agreement despite pleas from the husband that this would be severely detrimental to his finances.
Previous to this pre- nups carried very little weight in the UK, whereas now, judges have the opportunity to discuss how finances within a family setting, should be divided. Thus, not fully basing the decision on agreements made between the parties.

It is more than likely that this has not set a binding precedent, but introduced flexibility to the area of law, allowing judges to continue this, case dependent. Cases, therefore will be judges independent of one another.
The Law Commission is set to review this area of law in 2012 and so no legislation will be drafted, if at all, until then. However, this case does demonstrate how the law on pre-nups has evolved and may lead, making the way for other cases to take the same shape and reach a similar conclusion.

How the law on qualified privilege has progressed

Week 4

Until fairly recently, the common law only protected those relationships that contained a rigid classification of confidence i.e. between a solicitor and client, a husband and wife and interests involving national security or of the state. To be excluded from providing evidence, confidential communications usually have to fall within these established classes. There is no general privilege protecting communications given in confidence.

The case of Slavutych v. Baker [1975] created a flexibility within the law as it started to look at non - traditional classes of confidential communications in certain circumstances. In this case, a university professor, Slavutych, was invited to fill out a 'tenure form sheet' commenting on his colleague. His head of department indicated that the sheet would be held in confidence and destroyed after its use. Slavutych completed the form with highly derogatory comments about his colleague. University officials then took steps to dismiss him due to these comments. The courts reached the conclusion that the privilege was satisfied in the circumstance and the document, which was in deed prepared in confidence, but feel outside the strict perimeters surrounding confidentiality, was privileged and so inadmissible in evidence.
In reaching this decision, the courts considered Wigmore's four conditions, as necessary for the establishment of privilege. These are;

1. the communications must originate in a confidence that they will not be disclosed;
2. this element of confidentiality must be essential to the full and satisfactory maintenance of the relation between the parties;
3. the relation must be one which in the opinion of the community ought to be sedulously fostered, and
4. the injury that would inure to the relation by the disclosure of the communications must be greater than the benefit thereby gained for the correct disposal of the litigation.

Different approaches have been adopted by the courts. The broadest of which is that 'it is left open to the courts, in the exercise of their judicial discretion, to recognise and give effect to new categories on privilege of a case-by-case basis.

Other countries such as Canada have been more reluctant to adopt this approach as demonstrated in the case of Moysa v. Alberta (Labour Relations Board). In this case, a journalist, relying on Slavutych, claimed that she had a right to protect her sources of information on the basis of qualified privilege. The Supreme Court of Canada stated that: "Even if such a qualified testimonial privilege exists in Canada this appeal must be dismissed as the appellant here does not fall within any of the possible tests which have been proposed as establishing the conditions necessary to justify a refusal to testify".

Sinclair J.A. characterised the issue before the Alberta Court of Appeal as: "In what circumstances does the law preclude the admission of evidence simply because its source is confidential?"
"It is clear, nevertheless, that the types of evidence to which privilege will be ascribed have not been settled once and for all." He then quoted from Lord Parker C.J. in Attorney-General v. Clough and stated that
'To adopt the words of Lord Parker C.J. in the circumstances of the present case, is it clear that public policy demands a recognition of the appellant’s claim to privilege because the tenure form sheet was secured from him on a confidential basis?'

The courts have found that claims to privilege with respect to the following confidential communications did not satisfy Wigmore’s four conditions: documents gathered by a hospital in the course of inquiring into an allegation of medical malpractice, (Finley v. University Hospital Board, supra) a report prepared by a committee of the College of Dental Surgeons investigating a complaint against a dentist, (Bergwitz v. Fast, supra) a special nursing audit committee report, (British Columbia (Attorney General) v. Messier) documents evidencing complaints made against a psychiatrist in the possession of the College of Physicians and Surgeons, (F. v. a psychiatrist ) statements given to investigators of the Toronto Stock Exchange, (Merrill Lynch v. Granove) internal police reports (Bass v Toronto Star Newspapers Ltd) a videotape of a family counselling session (R. v. S. (R.J.), supra) and a confession made to a church pastor ( R v Fosty, supra).

With this new 'flexibility' and extension to the law, should bring further opportunities for journalists to report on the crucial matters, the public yearn for more information on. As the 21st century continues, the freedom of expression vs. privacy battle rages on, with the power struggle seeming to favour freedom of speech and so in turn the increased ability for journalist's to report on these crucial matters.

Media Law

Week 4

Privilege

So why does it matter? Routine reports are protected as they allow us as journalists to write or broadcast or  material which may be defamatory or untrue, or even both at the same time. It gives us protection from being sued.

There are two types of privilege;

1. Absolute
2. Qualified

Absolute privilege concern Acts of Parliament, Hansard and also court reports, providing they are taken in a fair, accurate and contemporaneous manner.
Qualified privilege is available for material that is taken in a fair and accurate manner, that is without malice and is on a matter of public concern. 

The Defamation Act 1996 sets out two levels of qualified privilege;

1. With or 'subject to' explanation or contradiction
2. 'Without' explanation or contradiction. Clarification such as notes need to by carried by someone.

In terms of  part. 1(i) this covers;

(i) public proceedings in legislature anywhere in the world
(ii) public proceedings in a court anywhere in the world
(iii) public proceedings of a public enquiry anywhere in the world
(iiii) public proceedings of an international organisation or conference i.e. the Copenhagen climate summit

Part 1 (ii) covers such things like an extract of a document or register, which is legally required by the public.

Part 2 covers instances of;

(i) public meetings
(ii) local councils and committees
(iii) tribunals, commissions, inquiries

 Associations such as the Football Association and the General Medical Council have a different status. The proceedings are not covered by legal paragraphs and therefore the public are excluded.


In the 2000 case of Turkington and Others v Times Newspapers Ltd, a meeting was not a public meeting just because the public attended without objection. A press conference where the public only had invitations was not as such public and a report of it was not protected under the act.
Written handouts are also covered under this law.

Journalists must recognise the risk of live broadcasts. Individuals who are suddenly newsworthy, in highly charged and emotional situations may blurt out defamatory statements and so a 'delay button' should be used to prevent being sued. The audience should be made aware of this.

No privilege is granted outside of the main proceedings. If defamatory, spontaneous comments shouted from the public gallery cannot be reported. Otherwise they can. These add the drama and 'colour' to the story.

George Galloway MP v Telegraph Group Ltd [2004]

The news headline read 'Telegraph reveals damning new evidence on Labour MP'. When sued, the paper did not claim the allegations were true but claimed the headline was merely an expression of opinion. The judge however said that 'damning' had a plain meaning, 'that is to say, that the evidence goes beyond a prima facie case and points to guilt.' The MP therefore won his case.

 Loutchansky v Times Newspapers Ltd [2001]

The Times published an articles about an international businessman, Grigori Loutchansky. The stories alleged that he controlled a major Russian criminal organisation involved in money-laundering and also the smuggling of nuclear weapons. The newspaper agreed the stories were defamatory, but argued it had a defence of qualified privilege. The defence was rejected and the case then went to the Court of Appeal, who agreed that the articles dealt with matters of public concern (point 2). To implicate him in this misconduct is highly likely to be very damaging to his reputation. Therefore a proportionate degree of responsibility was needed by the journalist and the editor. They failed to show this, in particular because the allegations were vague, the sources were unreliable, sufficient steps had not been taken to verify the information , and no comment had been obtained from Loutchansky before publication. The reporter claimed he had copied an interview down with a very important source, although he said he must of wrote this down on a scrap of paper and must of subsequently thrown it away. The Appeal court rejected the newspaper's appeal.

Scenario

A farmer, John Wagstaff, has put in a planning application to build six wind turbines on his land near Stockbridge.
Many residents are strongly opposed and call a public meeting to fight the plans.
The turbines will be sited adjacent to a golf club. Members there are already saying the noise will ruin their enjoyment.
Your WINOL news editor asks you to go to the meeting.
Emotions are running high - especially when the newly elected chairman of the SOS campaign group (Save Our Stockbridge) passes around artists impressions of what the turbines will look like on the hill above the town.
Henry Fisher (the chairman) tells the meeting:
'Mr Wagstaff says he's a supporter of green energy. In fact, this is all about making money and he doesn't give a damn about ruining the skyline above one of the most beautiful towns in Hampshire.'
Jim Eagle, golf club secretary, says :'This will ruin our course. It's environmental vandalism on a massive scale. No respect for our members or the countryside. If this happens we can forget the Ryder Cup bid.'
Mr Wagstaff isn't at the meeting, but one of his employees Geoff Salt is. He says: 'I'm no expert on green energy, but Mr Wagstaff has told me that without the income from the turbines, he might have to pack it in, and I'll be on the dole. So I think it's a good idea.'
There's an overwhelming vote to lobby the council against the turbines, and to start a petition.
After the meeting has ended, Mr Eagle comes up to you and says: 'The truth is that Wagstaff was black-balled by the committee last year and this is his revenge. Not a lot I can say, but many of us think he was routinely handing in falsified cards. Never settled his bar bill either. Not our sort at all.'
Both Henry Fisher and Jim Eagle's quotes are acceptable and ready for publication as they are both non - defamatory. The former is an honestly held opinion and the latter, a comment.
The third quote by George Salt ensures a fair balance of opinions are made. The reporter will be required to get in contact with Mr Wagstaff and so there will comments from both the employer and the employee.
The fourth quote, however, from Mr Eagle is defamatory. It certainly is not fair, as Mr Wagstaff is not there to defend himself and so the accuracy of the statement is under question. The statement is also made with malice in mind and is of no concern to the public. Therefore the quote would fail on both the grounds of absolute privilege and qualified privilege.

Media Law

Week 3
Further Reading

Defamation and Libel

A claimant has to show the court three things when suing for libel:

1. the publication is defamatory
2. it may be reasonably understood to refer to him/her, i.e. 'identification';
3. it has been published to a third person.

In terms of identification, the test in defamation law of whether the published matter identified the person suing is whether it would reasonably lead people acquainted with him/her to believe that he/she was the person referred to. In 1826, a judge said 'It is not necessary that all the world should understand the libel; it is sufficient if those who know the claimant can make out that he is the person meant'. This is still the law today. During the 1980s and the 1990s the Police Federation fought 95 libel actions , winning all of them and recovering £1,567,000 in damages. In one case, the Burton Mail paid £17,500 compensation plus legal costs to a woman police constable who featured anonymously in a story following a complaint about an arrest. It was argued that the story's details identified her.

Statute law
 
The Defamation Act 1996

S.1 allows newsagents and booksellers the defence of innocent dissemination, whereby they say they are merely the conduit for the passage of the words complained of and thus not responsible for them. However, this defence was not available to others such as distributors and broadcasters. The 1996 act extended this and now applies to the author, editor or publisher who took reasonable care in relation to its publication and who did not know and had no reason to believe that whatever part he/she had in the publication caused or contributed to the publication of a defamatory statement. This is also available to internet service providers, which provide as 'host' a service to allow individuals and companies to publish their own content on the their websites.

When deciding this, the court shall consider;
1. the extent of his/her responsibility for the content of the statment or the decision to publish it;
2. the nature or circumstances of the publication and
3. the previous conduct or character of the author, editor or publisher.

S.5 of the Act states that, in a defamation case where two or more 'charges' have been published against the claimant, 'a defence of justification shall not fail by reason only that the truth of every charge is not proved if the words not proved to be true do not materially injure the [claimant's] reputation, regarding the truth of the remaining charges.'

A defence is provided known as 'offer to make amends.' A defendant must make a written offer to make a suitable correction in a reasonable manner, and to pay the claimant suitable damages It can only be used the defendant did not know and had no reason to believe that the statement complained of referred to the claimant and was false and defamatory of him. The claimant has the 'onus' of showing that the publication was not innocent. Bearing this is mind, the defendant will have a defence, if the offer of amends is rejected.

Reduced the limitation period from three years to one year. This defence whereby proceedings were not started within the limitation period constitutes a complete defence, unless there is a new publication of offending material. Reporters should date their notebooks and store them carefully in case they are required to produce them in court.

The Civil Evidence Act 1995

The act makes hearsay evidence acceptable in court subject to certain conditions. For example, where the statement is contained or comprised in a document, it needs to be signed in order to make it admissable.

The Obscene Publications Act 1959

This in a large way replaces the common law offence of libel law, and introduced a defence that the publication was 'for the public good...in the interests of science, literature, art or learning, or of other objects of public concern.'


Case Law




Newstead v London Express Newspapers Ltd [1940]

The Daily Express had reported that 'Harold Newstead, a 30 - year - old Camberwell man', had been sent to prison for nine months for bigamy. The paper was successfully sued by another Harold Newstead, who worked in Camberwell, and who claimed that the account had been understood to refer to him. The claimant claimed that if the words were true of another person, which they were, it was the duty of the paper to give a precise and detailed description of that person, but the paper had 'recklessly struck out' the occupation and address of the person convicted.

Riches and others v News Group Newspapers Ltd [1986]

A case in 1986 concerned a reference published by a newspaper to an allegation that detectives at Banbury CID had raped a woman. The newspaper did not name those allegedly involved, and was successfully sued for reference to this group, which comprised only of 12 detectives.

Dow Jones and Co Inc v Yousef Abdul Latif Jameel [2005]

In 2005 the Court of Appeal held that it would be an abuse of process (resulting in the claim being rejected in court) for a claimant to bring a libel action over material on the internet unless 'substantial publication' in England could be shown. The court made reference to an article from a US - based internet service which was only downloaded by five people in England, three of whom were in the claimant's camp (including its lawyer), and the other two were unknown. The court did not consider that the article required provision of a fair trial and public hearing in relation to an alleged infringement of rights when it was not considered to be 'real or substantial.

Amoudi v Brisard [2006]

It will not be assumed by the court that the internet publication is necessarily regarded as substantial publication.

Crookes v Wikimedia Foundation Inc, [2008]

A Canadian court ruled that hyperlinks to articles containing defamatory material did not amount in that individual case, to substantial publication of defamatory statements by the publisher of the article containing the hyperlinks.

Birmingham six case

In 1993 and 1994 newspapers paid damages to defendants in the Birmingham six case, who had been sentenced to prison for terrorism but were later cleared on appeal. Police officers were accused of fabricating evidence, but prosecution of those officers involved, were never brought to court and so were abandoned. After this, the Sunday Telegraph reported one of the three officers, as referring to the Birmingham six incident as: 'In our eyes, their guilt is beyond doubt'. An article was published by the Sun newspaper based upon the Sunday Telegraph's interviews. It later carried an apology and was reported to have paid £1 million in damages.

Duke of Brunswick case

This 1849 case concerned the Duke who sued a newspaper for defamation after sending his butler to buy back a copy. These days, he would be able to call up the archive version on the internet. It is normally a defence to a libel action that it was not published until one more year after the publication. However, the law takes the view that every time an article in an archive is accessed this amounts to a new publication and can give rise to a new action. The Court of Appeal in 2001 confirmed that the rule in this case was still the law and did apply to the internet.

Jim Carr case

In 2006, a businessman, won a second libel suit form the Sunday Telegraph over the exact same story, s the newspaper had mistakenly left the piece accessible through its website. Already receiving a 12,000 payout plus an apology, he later received a further £5,000 in damages as a result of the internet based story.

The MORI and BBC case

In 1999, the BBC was sued by the research firm MORI and the head of its company. Bob Worcester, for defamatory remarks made by the controversial politician Sir James Goldsmith, during an interview that went out live on the radio. The BBC said that it had a defence under section 1 - but did it take 'reasonable care'? It was argued that the BBC should have known that he was likely to say something which sparked controversy, perhaps even defamatory, and therefore should of used a 'delay button' at least. the case was settled before the jury could reach a verdict.
I believe that the BBC should of completed sufficient research, if unaware of their subject's interview style and personality in order to prevent this situation arising. Therefore, if this had of reached court, I believe the jury would of ordered the BBC to pay damages to the MORI.

Godfrey v Demon Internet Ltd [2001]

The Internet service provider was successfully sued for matter on a newsgroup it hosted after the matter was left there for about ten days, after a complaint was made. The claim was for the damages for those ten days.

Gillian Taylforth case

The Sun newspaper successfully used the defence of justification when sued in 1994 by Gillian Taylforth , the television actress, and her boyfriend after it published a front - page story headlined 'TV Kathy's 'sex romp' on A1' saying the couple had indulged in oral sex in a parked car. The Sun received confirmation from the press office that her boyfriend had been cautioned for indecency, and when sued the paper 'joined' the police in the defence, with the result that the main defence witness was in fact the officer who claimed he saw the event. The jury found for the paper 10-2.

Jeffrey Archer case

In 1987, the politician and novelist was £500,000 against the Star newspaper, which said that he had paid a prostitute for sexual intercourse. He also sued the News of the World for a story headlined 'Tory boss Archer pays off vice girl'. It was true that Archer had paid £2,000 to the prostitute to go abroad in order to avoid scandal but he claimed the article implied that he had had a sexual relationship with her. The paper argued that it had never intended such an allegation, but it had to pay Archer £50,000 damages in an agreed settlement. In 2001, he was found guilty of perjury and perverting the course of justice in the libel action and jailed for four years. He ended up repaying the damages to the two papers, and their costs.

Lewis v Daily Telegraph, and Lewis v Associated Newspapers Ltd [1964]

When considering reports linking a claimant with criminal conduct, the courts recognise three levels of meaning:

1. the report may mean the person is guilty of the criminal offence (a level 1 meaning);
2. or he/she is reasonably suspected of the offence (level 2);
3. or there are grounds for an investigation (level 3)

These were set out by Lord Devlin in a case in which two national newspapers said the City of London fraud squad was inquiring into the affairs of a company. The statement was true, but the claimant said the words meant (by implication) that he and the company were guilty of fraud, or at least were suspected of fraud, and heavy damages were initially awarded against the newspapers. On appeal, the House of Lords ruled that the words were not capable of meaning that fraud had been committed, but they were capable of meaning that the claimants were suspected and that whether they had this meaning or not should be left to a jury.

Shah v Standard Chartered Bank [1999]

The reason it is defamatory to say a person is reasonably suspected of an offence is that it implies conduct on the person's part that justified that suspicion being made. So, if you are to succeed in a plea of justification you must show conduct on the person's part giving rise to the suspicion. It is no use saying other people told you about their suspicions.

Elaine Chase v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2002]

In 2003 the Sun newspaper had to pay £100,000 damages to a nurse for a story headlined 'Nurse is probed over 18 deaths'. The police had been investigating the circumstances of the deaths of a number of terminally ill children, who the defendant had treated but they concluded (after the Sun's story) that there were no grounds to suspect her of an offence. The newspaper attempted to show that there were reasonable grounds for suspicion, but the Court of Appeal said the paper was pretty much solely relying on the fact that allegations were made against the nurse to the police and the hospital trust. The newspaper only focused upon an allegation made after publication, and the court said that could not be taken into consideration.

Lowe v Associated Newspapers [2006]

In terms of fair comment, the judge gave an example of a publication of opinion which is protected by the defence of fair comment. 'Such conduct is disgraceful', is merely an expression of your opinion , your comment on the person's conduct. If on the other hand, you said 'he has been guilty of disgraceful conduct and do not state what that conduct was, this is an allegation of fact for which there is no defence, other than justification or privilege. The rule was relaxed in this case where Mr Justice Eady said a defendant was not confined to relying in support of the comment on facts actually stated or alluded to in the article itself.

Silkin v Beaverbrook Newspapers [1958]

A defendant must satisfy the jury that the comment upon established facts represents a view that a person could honestly hold on those facts. Lord Diplock stated 'people are entitled to hold and express strong views on mattes of public interest, provided they are honestly held. They may be views which some or all of you think are exaggerated, obstinate, or prejudiced.'

Tse Wai Chun Paul v Albert Cheng, Court of Final Appeal, Hong Kong [2001]

Lord Nicholls explained that when fair comment was being considered as a defence, malice covered a situation where a defendant 'put forward as his view something which, in truth, was not his view. It was purely a pretence. The law does not protect such statements.'

Branson v Bower [2001]

Bower, commenting on the attempt by Branson to run the national lottery, said: 'Sceptics will inevitably whisper that Branson's motive is self - glorification.' Bower claimed, when sued, that this was fair comment but Branson argued that it was factual allegation ( that his bid to get the national lottery stemmed from a questionable intention) and that this was untrue. Lord Justice Latham in the Court of Appeal said that comment was 'something which is or can reasonably be inferred to be a deduction, inference, conclusion, criticism, remark, observation. He agreed with the lower courts in that Bower was merely expressing opinions about Branson's motives.

Convery v The Irish News Ltd [2007]

The fair comment defence suffered a setback when a libel jury in Northern Ireland awarded £25,000 damages to the owner of a restaurant called Goodfellas over an unpleasant review in the Irish News. The award was quashed on appeal in 2008, with the Northern Ireland Chief Justice , Sir Brian Kerr, saying:
'Only if the jury has a clear understanding of what is capable of constituting comment, can it address the thorny issue of whether the facts on which comment is based are capable of justifying the comment made.

Sir Elton John v Guardian News and Media Ltd [2008]

Sir Elton John sued the Guardian for libel over a spoof article written by Marina Hyde under the headline 'A peek at the diary of...Sir Elton John'- a regular feature in the paper's Weekend section satirising the activities of celebrities. John claimed the article made his commitments to the Elton John Aids Foundation appear insincere and that once the costs of his White Tie and Tiara fundraising  ball were met only a small proportion of the funds raised would go to good causes. The Guardian's defence was that the words were merely comment and could not have the meaning claimed by John. Mr Justice Tugendhat accepted the Guardian's argument that the words were a form of teasing and if they were really trying to unearth a story about the ball's costs, it would not of used humour to do this.

Cassidy v Daily Mirror Newspapers Ltd [1929]

Cassidy was at the races and was photographed with a woman he described as his fiance.This was how she was described in the caption to the photograph used in the newspaper. Cassidy, however, was already married, and his wife sued on the ground that people who knew her would assume she had been 'living in sin.'

Muhamed Veliu v Xhevdet Mazrekaj and Skender Bucpapaj [2006]

A journalist here won damages over an article that accused him of being involved in bomb attacks in London the previous year. He sued both the publisher of the newspaper, that had used the story and its editor. The publisher made an unqualified offer of amends, but the editor 'did nothing'. The judge held both the publisher and the editor were jointly liable for the damages. A 30% discount was applied to the publishers, setting their maximum liability to £120,000. He said the claimant should receive £175,000 and made the editor liable for the whole amount.

Reynolds v Sunday Times Newspapers [2000]

In its defence, the Sunday Times said that, in keeping with Article 10 of the ECHR, the public interest in political issues and the conduct of elected politicians should be protected by qualified privilege at common law. In the first instance, the Sunday Times lost the case, but in 1998 in Reynolds v Times Newspapers [1998] Lord Bingham in the Court of Appeal said: 'As it is the task of the news media to inform the public and engage in public discussion of matters of public interest, so is that to be recognised as its duty. Reynolds defence was introduced. When the case reached the House of Lords, though Times Newspapers lost, the court confirmed the principle that the media do have a duty and the Reynolds defence was introduced.

Lord Nicholls set out a list of circumstances to consider when when looking at the defence;

1. The seriousness of the allegation. The more serious the charge, the more the public is misinformed and the individual harmed, if the allegation is not true.
2. The nature of the information, and the extent to which the subject matter is a matter of public concern.
3. The source of the information. Some informants have no direct knowledge of the events. Some have their own axes to grind, or are being paid for their stories.
4. The steps taken to verify the information.
5. The status of the information. The allegation may have already been the subject of an investigation which commands respect.
6. The urgency of the matter, News is often a perishable commodity.
7. Whether comment was sought from the claimant. He may have information others do not possess or have not disclosed. An approach to the claimant will not always be necessary.
8. Whether the article contained the gist of the claimant's side of the story.
9. The tone of the article. A newspaper can raise queries or call for an investigation. It need not adopt allegations as statements of fact.
10. The circumstances of the publication, including the timing.
Sticking purely to these ten points was considered to narrow by the House of Lords and so the whole context of the case needs to be looked at.

Jameel v Wall Street Journal Europe [2006]

Lord Bingham in the House of Lords said that the matter published had to be of public interest and the story had to be the product of 'responsible journalism'.

Leeds Weekly News case

The existence of the reporter's notebook was crucial in the successful defence. Being able to produce good, accurate notes is important when trying to show the 'steps taken to verify this information (point 4) when using the Reynold's defence.

GKR Karate Ltd v Yorkshire Post Newspapers Ltd [2001]

A judge found for the Leeds Weekly News, a free newspaper, which was being sued for an article warning readers against the conduct of door salesman selling karate club membership. It appeared on the front page under the headline, 'Give em the chop' and a sub-head, 'Doorstep salesmen flog dodgy karate lessons'. The fundamental question was one of public interest. Was it in the public interest for the newspaper to publish information as it did? The judge said he found the reporter to be an honest, sensible, and responsible person on whose evidence he could rely on and who was naturally concerned by the dangers, particularly to children, resulting from this organisation.

Al - Fagih v HH Saudi Research and Marketing (UK) Ltd [2001]

The Court of Appeal ruled that a newspaper was entitled to rely upon the Reynolds defence where it has reported, in a completely objective way, an allegation made in the course of a political dispute by one of the opponents. The defence was not lost merely because the newspaper had not verified the allegation. At trial, the judge rejected the defence of qualified privilege. The journalist had made no attempt to verify the truth of the allegations (point 4). However, on the facts, the failure to do this did not outweigh the public interest in publication.

Christopher Roberts and Barry Roberts v Gerry Gable, Steve Silver and Searchlight Magazine [2006]

Here, it was indicated that the defence of 'neutral reportage' could be used even when. by contrast to the above case, the journal and the staff were clearly not neutral. The test is not the stance the journalists take, but the way the story is reported. National party members failed to win their bid to sue against the anti-fascist magazine Searchlight, its editor and a journalist for libel when a judge upheld a qualified privilege defence based on the doctrine of reportage. A report made in the BNP's bulletin that the two claimants had threatened to 'kneecap, torture and kill' BNP members and their families. The defendants claimed they had a defence of qualified privilege because they were simply reporting the allegations. without adopting or endorsing them. 

Prince Radu of Hohenzollern v Housten and Another [2008]

An appeal was rejected  to overturn Mr Justice Eady's decision to strike out a Reynold's defence to an action by the Prince,