I really enjoyed today's class on Qualified Privilege. It was an insight into the world of Journalism and what one can get away with and what one cannot. I found particularly interesting the actual cases which bought about change in the law system and the cases that normally, you would think would win but actually didn't.I am going to start with a little dictionary of words and definitions. I think that these will come in handy for future reference when revising.
Affidavit = A sworn statement that is prepared to be said in court and may be cross examined. It can be done by a solicitor for about £30 or free by a magistrate. The magistrates call it a witness statement form. An affidavit can be reported on, word for word but cannot be sued for defamation or malice.
Subterfuge = Used in investigative journalism. This can only be done in a public area; no spying on people in their bedrooms. You also have to have permission from Ofcom and your editor, however newspapers don’t need any permission.
Trawling = listening in on people to try and catch a good story. Not allowed to do this, it's very bad! The News of the World were accused of doing this I think.
The cases mentioned that I found interesting were: Toogood vs Spyring, the Clegg Case and Albert Reynolds vs The Sunday Times.
These are all cases that when they got to court, the defamed didn't win. This site was quite interesting to skim read for a bit. It's about Nineteenth Century defamation and if it was a law of press. It's not too related to the class we had this morning but is quite interesting to read. Some good points on defamation too.
My Last point that I found very interesting and of which I am going to try and make sure I accomplish before I finish any article is the ten point list that came about after the case; Albert Reynolds vs The Sunday Times.
The Ten Point List
1) It must be a serious matter. The more serious the matter, the more protection.
2) The nature of the information. If it is likely to have been said in court but not malicious. It can, however be defamatory.
3) The source of the information has to be solid. Not any friends or drunken pub goers.
4) It must be shown that you have taken independent steps to check and disprove your statement.
5) The status of the information. It cannot be an old allegation that had previously been denied.
6) The urgency of the matter. It should be printed straight away. Not kept for a slow news day, if it is that important and urgent it should be printed straight away.
7) Whether the article shows the summary of the final phone call. Whether the defendant has had their chance to refute the points.
8)Whether the article contains the points refuted from the defendant.
9) The tone of the article.
10) The circumstances of the publication. It should be printed as soon as possible if the circumstances are in the interest of the public. They should know straight away.
This is just an overview of the ten points, Chris Horrie goes into further detail on the core site. http://journalism.winchester.ac.uk/?page=228
I also look forward to looking through the cases of the people in jail for life. I very much like the idea of being able to get someone out of prison due to faked evidence or the police using them as a scapegoat. Even though I think this sounds awesome and would love to be able to do it, I have no doubt that I will probably just be going over evidence and cases of people that deserve to be in prison and for good reason. Maybe one day I'll save someone from a lethal injection ...
Site recommended by Chris,
Transparency International. http://www.transparency.org.uk/
Transparency International. http://www.transparency.org.uk/
very good notes - but there's a slight error. It is very useful to me to see when I am not being clear. An affidavit is simply a statement that can be read in court - it is evidence to support a defamatory claim that you might make. The contents of the affidavit could be libelous if quoted but would have QP SUBJECT TO REFUTATION because it is a document properly and legally prepared for court proceedings. It would only have ordinary or 'full' QP when it was read out in court, or read into the record of the court. The danger is that the judge might to accept the affidavit.
ReplyDeleteBut this is a level of detail you would only need if you were a lawyer. As a journalist you all you need to know is that if somebody tells you something libellous about somebody and they do this with malice, then the malice is transferred to you. But if you get them to make an affidavit then the malice (if any) stays with them.
The phrase "would you be prepared to swear that in court" is a good one to use when you are interviewing people and they start making outrageous allegations. Sometimes they will say "yes". But then they will become"shy" when you ask them to swear a statement in front of a notary.
The law on affidavits is covered by the Access to Justice Act.