Reynolds v Times Newspapers Ltd
| Reynolds v Times Newspapers Ltd | |
|---|---|
 |
|
| Court | House of Lords |
| Full case name | Reynolds v Times Newspapers Ltd [2001] 2 AC 127 |
| Decided | 1999 |
| Case history | |
| Prior action(s) | [1998] EMLR 723 [1998] 3 WLR 862 |
| Subsequent action(s) | [2001] 2 AC 127 (HL) |
| Court membership | |
| Judge(s) sitting |
Court of Appeal: Lord Bingham of Cornhill CJ, Hirst and Robert Walker LJJ House of Lords: Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Steyn, Lord Cooke of Thorndon Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough |
| Keywords | |
| defamation, public interest | |
Court of Appeal: Lord Bingham of Cornhill CJ, Hirst and Robert Walker LJJ
Reynolds v Times Newspapers Ltd was a House of Lords case in English defamation law concerning qualified privilege for publication of defamatory statements in the public interest.
The case provided the Reynolds defence, which could be raised where it was clear that the journalist had a duty to publish an allegation even if it turned out to be wrong. In adjudicating on an attempted Reynolds defence a court would investigate the conduct of the journalist and the content of the publication. The subsequent case of Jameel v Wall Street Journal Europe affirmed the defence, which was subsequently raised successfully in several defamation proceedings. The defence was abolished by s4(6) Defamation Act 2013, being replaced with the statutory defence of publication on a matter of public interest.
Albert Reynolds had been the Taoiseach (Prime Minister) of Ireland until a political crisis in 1994. The Times had published an article in Ireland to the effect that Reynolds had misled the Irish Parliament; this article was then published in the United Kingdom. However, the UK version omitted an explanation that Reynolds had given for the events, which had been printed in the original article. Reynolds brought an action for defamation. The defences of justification and fair comment were unavailable, given the factual nature of the article. Times Newspapers Ltd appealed that the defence of qualified privilege be considered; the Court of Appeal denied this. The appeal to the House of Lords was therefore on the matter of whether the defence of qualified privilege be extended to cover the mass media.
Lord Nicholls, speaking for the majority, upheld Lord Bingham's judgement in the Court of Appeal, adding to it a list of ten criteria against which attempts to use the defence of qualified privilege should be judged:
...
Wikipedia