Responsible journalism (page 194)

Britain’s highest court struck a major blow for press freedom today when it decided that a newspaper could defeat a libel claim by showing it was acting in the public interest.
Restoring a defence that had almost withered away, the law lords allowed an appeal by the Wall Street Journal Europe against a finding that the newspaper had libelled a prominent Saudi Arabian businessman and his Saudi-based vehicle distribution company.
Mohammed Abdul Latif Jameel had been awarded £30,000 damages and Abdul Latif Jameel Co Ltd a further £10,000 in 2003 over a report suggesting that they were being used, knowingly or unknowingly, to funnel funds to terrorist organisations.
The article was published four months after the attacks of September 11, 2001, carried out mainly by hijackers from Saudi Arabia and financed, it was strongly suspected, by Saudi funds.
Geoffrey Robertson, QC, who acted for the Journal, said afterwards that the decision would provide the media in Britain with greater freedom to publish newsworthy stories.
“It frees serious investigative journalism from the chilling effect of libel actions, so long as the treatment is not sensational and the editorial behaviour is responsible,” Mr Robertson added.
“The decision is an important step in moving freedom of speech closer to that enjoyed by the United States media under the First Amendment.”
Lord Hoffmann, who gave the leading judgment today, said the newspaper’s defence was based on what was known in the trade as “Reynolds privilege — although a more appropriate title would be “Reynolds public interest defence”.
This defence dates from a law lords’ ruling in 1999 in a case brought by the former Irish prime minister Albert Reynolds. It was thought to have protected journalists from libel actions even if they could not prove the truth of what they had printed — provided they had behaved responsibly. However, newspapers that relied on the defence over the padt six years have been largely unsuccessful.
Mr Justice Eady, the High Court judge who heard Mr Jameel’s claim, was criticised by Lord Hoffmann for not applying the law as laid down in 1999.
One of the judges in the Reynolds case had listed 10 factors for courts to take into account in deciding whether newspapers had acted responsibly.
“These are not tests which the publication has to pass,” Lord Hoffmann said today. “In the hands of a judge hostile to the spirit of Reynolds, they can become 10 hurdles at any of which the defence may fail. That is how Mr Justice Eady interpreted them.”
One of the 10 points was whether the claimant was given an opportunity to comment on the story. Mr Justice Eady and the Court of Appeal had treated the Journal’s refusal to delay publication by 24 hours as fatal to their defence.
If the newspaper had waited, it would have received a denial from the Saudi Arabian Monitoring Authority that it was monitoring Mr Jameel’s account. Mr Justice Eady thought that this might have killed the story.
But that was “unrealistic”, said Lord Hoffmann. A denial was exactly what one would expect, and he did not think it would have inhibited the Journal from publishing a story that had been confirmed by the Treasury in Washington.
Mr Justice Eady also came in for criticism from another of the law lords for finding it was inconsistent with responsible journalism for the Journal to have disclosed the names of businesses on a confidential list passed by US officials to the Saudi authorities for monitoring.
“Subject to D notices and the like,” said Lord Scott, “it is no part of the duty of the press to co-operate with any government, let alone foreign governments, whether friendly or not, in order to keep from the public information of public interest the disclosure of which cannot be said to be damaging to national interests.”
Lady Hale stressed that there must be a real public interest for the defence to apply. This did not apply to “vapid tittle-tattle” about footballers’ wives and girlfriends. But “if ever there was a story which met the test, it must be this one. In the immediate aftermath of 9/11, it was in the interests of the whole world that the sources of funds for such atrocities be identified and if possible stopped.”
Lady Hale added that the story was “gravely serious — indeed, some might find it seriously dull. We need more such serious journalism in this country and our defamation law should encourage rather than discourage it.”
Welcoming the law lords’ ruling, the Wall Street Journal Europe said it recognised the importance of giving news organisations “an incentive to produce serious journalism on compelling subjects of public concern without the risk of nitpicking and second-guessing by courts years later”.
Mr Jameel, whose family owns the Oxford-based car distributors Hartwell, said it was not true that his company’s accounts were being monitored at the request of the US authorities.
“Mr Justice Eady and the Court of Appeal ruled that I was libelled. The House of Lords ruled that I was not, because it was reasonable for the Wall Street Journal Europe to print something that was false. So be it. I was only ever interested in proving that the allegations were untrue.”

Posted at October 11, 2006 06:00 PM