Media Law lecture -- Jan. 31: Libel Law, cont'd

• Who can sue?
• Individuals
• Not the dead
• However, complaint can be brought via PCC or Ofcom.
• Groups of individuals
• Who is reasonably identifiable?
• Holton v. Jones 1910
• Test is whether an allegation could reasonably lead to a person being identified
• Group of non-English cricketers in 1995 sued Cricket Wisdom for saying “non-England born” players were less dedicated to the team.
• O-Shay v. Mirror Group -- Claimant claimed a risque call phoneline photo resembled her; case dismissed as being unreasonable (It would be impossible for newspapers to verify that nobody other than the subject looks like somebody in a photo
• The “Tapas 7” weren’t referred to directly but sued due to false allegations.
• Calling a group a “criminal family” a bad idea — even if there are a few who have records, everyone in that family could sue.
• Companies
• General damage: damages for loss of reputation
• Ordinarily should not be substantial.
• Special damages: damages that can be proven
• If, say, a report comes out arguing a drug is dangerous, a company can sue for lost revenue.
• Colins Stewart Tullett PLC v. Financial Times (2004)
• Broking company criticized by FT. Company claimed for loss of their shares, £37m worth. Claim rejected; the loss of a share price is unforeseeable.
• Not public authorities / political parties
• Darbyshire County Council v. Times Newspapers (1993)
• Public bodies should be open to uninhibited criticism.
• Goldsmith v. Bhoyrul (1998)
• Goldsmith could sue, but not the political party he was a member of.
• Who can be sued?
• Publisher, journalist, editor
• What is the meaning of the report?
• Express meanings:
• What is the natural and ordinary meaning?
• What is the meaning conveyed to an ordinary, reasonable viewer?
• Can read between the lines but is not avid for scandal.
• Charleston v. News Group (1995)
• Report about pornographic computer game in which soap stars faces are pasted on top of porn star bodies. House of Lords came down on side of newspaper; claimants had to look at the article as a whole. Reading the headline and text would argue the soap stars were in no way affiliated with the game.
• Look at the report as a whole
• Tone of report/qualifications
• Taking a middle line is important;
• Stance of a report
• Lewis v. Daily Telegraph (1964)
• Report in Telegraph said that fraud squad were looking into affairs of company after criticism of the chairman’s statement
• House of Lords came down on side of Daily Telegraph
• Publication must be taken as a whole; suspicion of guilty is not proof of guilt.
• Precise, clear account of the facts.
• Implied meanings
• Wallpaper
• Don’t show a photo of a random officer if there’s a report of corruption; ONLY show the officer accused of corruption.
• Innuendo
• Private Eye-ese
• “Tired and emotional” = drunk; “Ugandan discussions” = an affair; “Smoking an exotic charout” = pot use; “close friends”
• Libel and the Internet
• Godfrey v. Demon Internet
• A claimant can sue the publisher of a website, but not the ISP, unless it’s kept online?
• Gutnick v. Wall St. Journal
• You can be sued anywhere in the world -- any jurisdiction it could be downloaded.
• Chat boards
• If not responsible for what’s being published, then should not be held responsible for what’s on the chat. (Innocent dissemination)
• Chat boards at the end of controversial articles not a good idea.
• Libel tourism
• Forthcoming defamation act will decide whether somebody without much reputation here would be able to sue for libel
• Substantial publication
• The defences
• Justification
• Burden of proof is on the broadcaster/publisher
• How are you going to prove the truth?
• What is the evidence you can rely on?
• Assessing the evidence
• If an individual has been paid, it’s less easy to rely on their defence.
• Is the individual motivated by malice?
• Source with a criminal record is less likely to be believed.
• Is the individual within the jurisdiction, will they be able to testify?
• If outside the UK you can’t make them testify.
• Are there other sources or documents you can rely on?
• Just because someone says something to you doesn’t necessarily make it the basis for a report
• A note made contemporaneously is stronger than one made after the interview.
• Fair comment
• An opinion
• Based on true facts

IMPORTANT: Look up Reynolds defence