After Reynolds (page 190)

Ruling in January 2004 in the case of Jameel v Wall Street Journal, Mr Justice Eady clarified the principles of “Reynolds privilege”.

He said: “It can thus be readily appreciated that the defence exists ultimately not to afford journalists a special privilege, or a degree of protection which is not available to other citizens, but to protect the public itself in respect of allegations of which it would be wrong to deprive us. Because it can on occasion afford such protection to allegations of the gravest and most damaging kind, and which may though false remain uncorrected when the defence is upheld, it is tolerably plain that it can only be sustained after the closest and most rigorous scrutiny — primarily, of course, by the application of Lord Nicholls’ ten tests.”

Maintaining a narrow view of qualified privilege, Mr Justice Eady acknowledged that “enterprising and investigative journalism should be viewed as fundamentally important from the public point of view in a democratic society” He accepted that courts “must pay due regard to the perishability and ephemeral nature of some news material”.

But then, he concluded, the need for the public to be kept up to date is not to be confused with the quite understandable need of editors and journalists to obtain a scoop or to publish ahead of their rival newspapers. That is why claims of urgency on the part of journalists need to be carefully scrutinised and measured against the true entitlement of the general public, which is to be kept up to date with accurate and responsibly researched information.”

Posted at March 1, 2004 12:01 AM