![handle is hein.journals/joomaw9 and id is 1 raw text is:
JOURNAL OF MEDIA LAW, 2017
VOL. 9, NO. 1, 1-13 ledge
https://doi.org/10.1080/17577632.2017.1315900 Taylor &Francis Group
Reynolds revived and replaced
Eric Barendt
Emeritus Professor, University College London, London, UK
ABSTRACT
Two recent decisions of Warby J have upheld the defence of public interest
privilege to libel actions: the first on the common law principles established in
Reynolds v Times Newspapers, the second on the basis of the provision in the
Defamation Act 2013 which replaced Reynolds. Though neither decision
resolves every question about the scope of the defence, both of them show a
high regard for the concerns of defendants who raise this defence in libel cases.
ARTICLE HISTORY Received 3 March 2017; Accepted 3 April 2017
KEYWORDS Reynolds; public interest; freedom of speech; reasonable belief in truth
Introduction
Initially the courts seemed reluctant to uphold the public interest qualified
privilege defence to defamation actions, which was introduced in the
common law by the landmark decision of the House of Lords in Reynolds v
Times Newspapers Ltd.' They often insisted on strict compliance with the
requirements of 'responsible journalism' listed by Lord Nicholls in Reynolds
as factors to consider when determining whether the defence should
succeed.2 But the later decisions of the Lords in Jameel and of the Supreme
Court in Flood upheld newspaper reliance on the defence, emphasising the
role of editorial discretion in deciding whether to include defamatory alle-
gations in a story of real public interest. The principles in these cases have
now been applied by Warby J in Yeo v Times Newspapers Ltd.4 His decision
shows how the requirements of responsible journalism can be treated by a
court sympathetic to investigative journalism, leading to the successful use
of the common law Reynolds defence in the last important case to consider
it (see section on Yeo, below).
CONTACT Eric Barendt 0 e.barendt@ucl.ac.uk ( 74, Upper Park Road, London NW3 2UX, UK
1[2001] 2 AC 127.
2See for example the judgments of Eady J in James Gilbert v MGN [2000] EMLR 680 and in Jameel v Wall
Street Journal Europe Sprl [2004] EMLR 196, applying Reynolds (n 1) 205.
3Jameel v Wall Street Journal Europe Sprl [2007] 1 AC 359; Flood v Times Newspapers Ltd [2012] 2 AC 273.
4[2015] EWHC 3375 (QB); [2017] EMLR 1.
0 2017 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.journals/joomaw9&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)
What Is HeinOnline?
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most