Libel Qualified Privilege

Libel

A false and malicious publication printed for the purpose of defaming a living person.

If you make a defamourty statement you;

-Lower someone in the estimation of right thinking members of the public.

-Causes someone to be shunned or avoided

-Disparages someone in their business, trade, office or profession

-Exposes someone the hatred, ridicule or contempt.

Defences;

Justification - Its true....you have evidence or you can prove it

Fair or honest comment - if it is an honest opinion based on facts or privilege matter, and comment must be of public interest.

Absolute Privilege

Qualified privilege (read further down)

Reynolds Defence - you are allowed to publish when the matter is in the public interest. It must also meet the ten points on Nicholls' list. (read below)

Definition as defined by the British Columbia Court of Appeal;

"The essence of the defence (of qualified privilege) is a duty, legal, social or moral, to publish the matter complained of to persons with a corresponding duty or interest to receive it."

Qualified Privilege is one of the defences against libel. It allows a reporter to publish defamatory statements under certain circumstances. There are two types of qualified privilege.

Common Law Qualified Privilege

It is ok to make a defamatory comments provided it is in public interest. This does not mean that it is simply interesting. The allegation made when reporting must be fair, accurate and without malice.

Statutory Qualified Privilege

Journalists can attract this QP in many places such as public meetings, council meetings etc but the main two places would be court and parliament. As long as the journalist reports fast accurate and fair in order to avoid malice then they are in no danger of any libel action. The report must also be balanced. So here you must give the accused a chance to deny the allegations made towards them. This must be included in the same report, i.e "he denies the charges" and "the case continues". If you don't do this you will lose you qualified privilege and be at serious risk of libel.

ALBERT REYNOLDS vs SUNDAY TIMES

Following the resignation of Irish Prime minister Albert Reynolds, the Sunday Times published an article saying that Reynolds had lied to the Irish Parliament in order to cover a child abuse scandal. Although when challenged by Reynolds there was no evidence and they could not prove anything. However when the case came back into light in 1989 the court felt that "the Sunday Times" had a duty to publish what they knew as it was in the public interest.

So journalist now can now attract the Reynold defence so long as it passes the 10 point test made by Lord Nichols which are;

1. The seriousness of the allegation – the more serious the allegation, the more protection will be applied. If not at all serious then no protection can be enjoyed.

2. The nature of the information - is it a matter of public concern or in the public interest?

3 . The source of the information. If it is an authoritative source you may publish the statement made even if it turns out to be untrue.

4. The steps taken to verify the information.

5. The status of the information. Would need to ensure that this was not a repeat allegation.

6. The urgency of the matter.

7. Whether comment was sought from the claimant

8. Whether the article contained the gist of the claimant’s side of the story

9. The tone of the article.

10. The circumstances of the publication

And that is more or less it really that I can think of. The most important point to remember and must stress is that any report made where you wish to attract Qualified Privilege must be FAST ACCURATE AND FAIR to avoid and MALICE