Want to stay current on e–commerce law? Sign up for Email Newsletter.
British House of Lords Broadens Protection for Journalists against Defamation Claims
The recent decision of the British House of Lords in the case of Jameel v. Wall Street Journal Europe broadens the protection afforded to journalists against claims of defamation. The decision provides for a more deferential application of the “Reynolds privilege”, and a less stringent test to be met for “responsible journalism”, both of which are required for a successful defence under British law.
The case involved an article published by the Wall Street Journal claiming that the Saudi Arabian Monetary Authority (SAMA), at the request of the US Treasury, was monitoring the accounts of certain named Saudi companies to trace whether any payments were finding their way to terrorist organizations. The jury had found that the article was defamatory of the Saudi companies and an individual who was an officer of each of the companies.
The principal issue before the Court was whether the Wall Street Journal fell within the scope of the Reynolds privilege, which permits the publication of information that is in the public interest. While the article on a whole was considered to be in the public interest, the more problematic question was whether the public interest required the inclusion in the article of the defamatory statement (in this case, the naming of the actual Saudi companies). The court established that, in considering this question, weight should ordinarily be given to the professional judgment of an editor or journalist in the absence of some indication that it was made in a casual, cavalier, slipshod or careless manner. In this particular case, the Court held that the Reynolds privilege existed.
Having concluded that the article and the defamatory statement were in the public interest, the court went on to consider whether the article met the test for responsible journalism, i.e. whether the Wall Street Journal acted fairly and responsibly in gathering and publishing the information. Of particular concern was the fact that the Wall Street Journal published the article prior to receiving comment from Jameel on the truth of the allegations being made in the article. This failure was taken by the Court of Appeal as fatal to the Wall Street Journal’s defence. However, the House of Lords reversed the decision of the Court of Appeal on the basis that Jameel would not have been in a position to know whether or not he, or the named Saudi companies, were being secretly monitored. Further, the court concluded that there was no way that SAMA would admit to the monitoring of the accounts. As such, the failure of the Wall Street Journal to confirm the truth of the allegations with Jameel and/or SAMA was found by the House of Lords not to be fatal to the Wall Street Journal’s defence.
Some observers view the ruling as a shift in British law, which was previously considered to be more in favour of defamation claimants, particularly to the extent that journalists will no longer be required to prove the truth of allegations made in publications.
For a copy of the decision, visit:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,200-2398969,00.html