blogging catch up - law lecture 4 Qualified privaledge

This blog post is mostly to consolidate my understanding of QP from our lectures and the reading from McNaes. Unfortunately it seems to be work that is taking precedence in my blog lately! I don’t know how this happened but im gonna have to start blogging about "fun" things again; I know all my avid readers will love this news... awkward. I'll always remember this lecture as what I like to call the time that Chris Horrie pulled a phone off the wall. So! Here are my late law notes!

So the main thing I learned that lesson was that anyone who is on TV is instantly news worthy. Joking, but it’s one of many amazing anecdotes that Chris comes out with - using the example of Adele referring to herself as: "common as muck". 

• Justification - the true facts that we can prove
• Fair Comment - we can defend ourselves on the basis that what we have said is truly what we believe
• Qualified Privilege - If it has been said in court that someone is a thief, we are allowed to call them so.

Qualified privilege in common law rests on the case of Toogood v Spiring. Spiring accused his butler, Toogood, of stealing his silvers and other precious items and then wrote a bad reference and had to tell the truth in this reference, (very much like a tutor writing a reference for a student), even if it is defamatory. But there would be the protection of qualified privilege, only if the reference is without malice, and if it were fast, accurate and fair.

Reynolds v Times Newspapers: This is a UK legal case in the House of Lords which is related to qualified privilege for publication of defamatory statements when it comes to the defence of "in the public interest". This then came up with the term: "the Reynolds defence", which is the idea that a journalist can publish an article out of a sense of duty to his fellow man to inform people of something, even if the claim turns out to be wrong.

The Times claimed that Albert Reynolds (Irish PM) deceived the Irish parliament so he could cover up a child abuse scandal. The Times said it believed the allegations were true, Reynolds then challenged them saying they couldn’t prove anything because, as per, there were no witnesses.

The case then went into the Higher Courts. The judges thought the Times newspaper had a civic duty to the people to publish the allegations, as they were serious offences and allegations. This was very much in the public interest and it was of a key importance that that they be discussed. At this time, the Human Rights Act was then newly introduced bringing with it freedom of expression. This extends to things that people do in the public life and has no hold over what people do in the private sphere of life.

The Ten-Point Test: This refers to people trying to use the Reynolds defence in court, it claims that your argument has to meet 10 criteria to be entitled to the Reynolds defence. Lord Nicholls emphasised a ‘duty to publish’ if the newspaper or a reporter thought he/she knew there was anything wrong. Lord Nicholls came up with these 10 criteria: 

1. The seriousness of the allegation. The more serious the charge, the more the public is misinformed and the individual harmed, if the allegation is not true.
2. The nature of the information, and the extent to which the subject-matter is a matter of public concern.
3. The source of the information. Some informants have no direct knowledge of the events - people might be lying out of spite and so on.
4. The steps taken to verify the information.
5. The status of the information. The allegation may have already been the subject of an investigation.
6. The urgency of the matter
7. Whether comment was sought from the plaintiff. He may have information others do not possess or have not disclosed.
8. Whether the article contained the gist of the plaintiff's side of the story.
9. The tone of the article. A newspaper can raise queries or call for an investigation.
10. The circumstances of the publication

Bye and stuff x