Law - 20 October

This week we learnt more about Qualified Privilege. I mentioned the basics of this last week as a defence against defamation.

Qualified privilege is when what you have written has been said in court. If you are going to report something defamatory and plan on using qualified privilege as your defence you must report fast, accurately and fair. The offended person does not have to show that they have been harmed but do have to show that they have suffered.

Common Law Qualified Privilege is a form of the above but it does not have to be said in court. This can be used is the following conditions have been met. The public need to hear about it, this is something that you do not need to prove. It has to be without any malice at all. The article itself and EVERYTHING you have ever written before. You should never write with malice anyway but if you have any article with malice in, you can not use common law qualified privilege. Again, everything must be fast, accurate and fair; and, for good measure there must be reasonable suspicion.

Malice can expressed or implied. Either way is bad for journalism. No article you write should ever have malice in it. Unless you write comment pieces you should never have your own opinion in your articles anyway. When implying malice you are again, putting your own opinion in the piece which should not be done. To have common law qualified privilege you must show no malice and have no malice in any piece you have ever written/produced.

The Reynolds Defence

This is a list put together by Lord Nicholls that journalists must adhere to if they want to use the defence when publishing defamatory material. Bearing in mind that the piece in question is of public interest and is responsible journalism.

This defence came about when the Sunday Times was sued by Albert Reynolds; the former head of the Irish government. He sued because he believed that the story had deliberately and dishonestly misled the country's parliament.

In the defence of the Sunday Times they said that they were keeping within article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights and that in public interest in political issues and the conduct of elected politicians should be protected by qualified privilege.

The Sunday Times lost but the following defence was put together to allow future publications to publish defamatory articles in the name of public interest.

1. The allegation must be true and the seriousness of the allegation.

2. The extent to which the information is a matter of public concern.

3. The source of the information. No one with previous anger against the accused or are being paid for the story.

4. All the steps that you've taken to verify the information. This must be recorded information.

5. The status of the information. If it is all ready subject to an investigation this must be respected.

6. The urgency of the matter. Can not be old news.

7. Approach the claimant for comment.

8. Whether the article contained the gist of the claimants side of the story.

9. The tone of the article. The newspaper can raise queries and investigations.

10. The circumstances of the publication, including timing.

This has been criticised as being too narrow by judges in the House of Lords.

For more information about the Reynolds VS The Sunday Times please visit, http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199899/ldjudgmt/jd991028/rey01.htm

Research from McNae's essential law for journalists.

Picture from: Mail Online

Law - 13 October

This week was libel and defamation.

You can commit libel if you do any of the following:

1. Defamation

2. Identification

3. Publication

Defamation is when you write an article that defames someone or a company. Defaming someone means you have damaged their reputation. To be accused of defaming someone it has to be proven. You can also be accused of defamation through slander.

Identification, this is when a particular person is named. This can be an accidental problem through jigsaw identification. This is when you tell the story with all the facts but you explain enough that the reader can understand who it is. Jigsaw identification can be done accidentally so when writing a script telling facts about the defendant you have to be careful you don't explain too much.

Publication is when the article/programme is viewed by more than one person. When published on the Internet each load of the page is another publication.

For each of these ways of defamation there are ways in which to defend yourself against it. You only need one of these defences but the more you have the more covered you are.

Justification is when what you have said is true and you can prove it. You need to be able to prove this though. This is one reason you should always keep all your rushes and notes. Especially if your notes are in short hand. This makes your evidence more believable.

Comment is your second defence against defamation. This is when it is the writers opinion. This has to be shown as definite opinion however. Many newspapers have a header at the top of the page saying comment or opinion. Sometimes guest editors also fall in to this category, especially in magazines where they get many celebrities to write a page of opinion on other celebrities, styles, fashion etc.

Qualified privilege is when what you have written has been said in court. If you are going to report something defamatory and plan on using qualified privilege as your defence you must report fast, accurately and fair. The offended person does not have to show that they have been harmed but do have to show that they have suffered.

Common Law Qualified Privilege is a form of the above but it does not have to be said in court. This can be used is the following conditions have been met. The public need to hear about it, this is something that you do not need to prove. It has to be without any malice at all. The article itself and EVERYTHING you have ever written before. You should never write with malice anyway but if you have any article with malice in, you can not use common law qualified privilege. Again, everything must be fast, accurate and fair; and, for good measure there must be reasonable suspicion.

Picture By: Mr T in DC

Journalism Law; Points to Consider ...

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.

http://sas-space.sas.ac.uk/dspace/bitstream/10065/1785/1/amicus75_mitchell.pdf.pdf

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/