In a landmark ruling by the House of Lords, the British media has won the right to publish allegations about public figures, free from the "chilling" threat of libel laws.
In a judgment that lawyers believe will bring in a new era of journalism, five law lords unanimously ruled Wednesday in favour of a public interest defence that brings English law close to the freedom enjoyed by US media.
Journalists will be able to publish material if they act responsibly and in public interest, and will be free from the risk of libel damages, even if allegations later prove to be untrue.
Judges of Britain's highest court pronounced that the media was entitled to publish defamatory allegations as part of its duty of free and fair reporting, or if it believed such to be of substance and in public interest.
The ruling came in an appeal filed by The Wall Street Journal, Europe, against a High Court decision backed by the Court of Appeal, that it should pay 40,000 pounds damages to Mohammad Jameel, a billionaire Saudi car dealer, whose family owns Harwell Motors in Oxford.
The story, published in February 2002, said that bank accounts associated with a number of prominent Saudi citizens, including Jameel's family and their business, had been monitored by the Saudi Government at the request of US authorities to ensure that no money was provided intentionally or knowingly to fund terrorists.
The ruling clarifies and simplifies the right of the media to plead the "Reynolds defence" to libel claims, that is, what they publish should be in the public interest.
Lord Hoffmann, giving the lead judgment, said that the article was a perfect example of journalism for which the public interest defence should be available. It was for judges to apply the public interest test, but the article in the Journal easily passed that test, he said. "It was a serious contribution in measured tone to a subject of very considerable importance," he said. It could not be proved true because the existence of covert surveillance would be impossible to prove by evidence in open court. But that did not mean it did not happen.
Lord Hoffmann said the newspaper was entitled to report defamation cases against individuals, so long as they "made a real contribution to the public interest element in the article".
He said that judges, with "leisure and hindsight", should not 'second-guess' editorial decisions made in busy newsrooms. "That would make the publication of articles which are...in the public interest too risky and would discourage investigative reporting," he said.
Lord Bingham of Cornhill, the senior law lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Scott of Foscote and Baroness Hale of Richmond were of the same opinion. "We need more such serious journalism in this country and our defamation law should encourage rather than discourage it," said Lady Hale.
Geoffrey Robertson, QC, who argued the case for the paper, said the decision gave the British media more freedom to publish newsworthy stories.
