In most areas where the tort law exists, the concentration is mainly with regard to the protection of personal safety against harm caused by physical interference. The tort of defamation is however concerned with protecting the claimant from harm caused by harsh words (harm caused verbally). Defamation may be defined as ?the publication of a statement which tends to lower a person in the estimation of a right thinking person in general'. The judgment would be based on the question ?what would be the interpretation of the reasonable man upon the statement that is said to be defamatory.' English law is well versed in justice and has therefore, developed libel laws in order to provide protection of reputation. However, when considering this protection in an in depth manner, it should be remembered that the competing right to freedom of expression is also a protection by law. When a conflict arises between these two rights, the courts are expected to play a vital role by striking a balance between the right to protection of reputation and the right to freedom of speech.
[...] Therefore, the common law approach to qualified privilege remains steady; the duty and interest test is to be applied with no addition of a “circumstantial test”. Although the House of Lords did not allow political speech to become a generic privilege, Reynolds constitutes a turn in the law of defamation. It recognised a duty of the press to inform the public at large about matters of public interest. In this sense, Reynolds created a new privilege, the Reynolds privilege also called “responsible journalism” acknowledged in later cases such as Loutchansky v Times Newspapers (No and Jameel v Wall Street Journal Europe. [...]
[...] Whereas the crucial importance of freedom of expression/freedom of the press cannot be in dispute, some feel that the development of the "Reynolds defence", has gone too far in relegating the role of libel laws to a position of secondary importance Where most areas of tort law are concerned with the protection of personal safety against harm caused by physical interference, the tort of defamation is however concerned with protecting the claimant from harm caused by words. Defamation may be defined as “the publication of a statement which tends to lower a person in the estimation of a right- thinking person in general”, the test being: what would be the interpretation of the reasonable man upon the statement said to be defamatory. [...]
[...] There is no requirement that the defendant must have intended to refer to the claimant, such as in Hulton Co v Jones[4]. The words of the statement must be defamatory according to the definition given below, though the claimant does not have to prove that anyone believed the words to be true. It is for the judge to decide if the words in question are capable of being defamatory but it is for the jury to decide if they are in fact. [...]
[...] The Abdul Latif Jameel Group was named as being on the list of such accounts. The main company in that group and its President, Mr. Mohammed Jameel sued the Wall Street Journal for libel. The House of Lords established three requirements for the defendants to rely on Reynolds defence. The first is that the subject-matter of the publication must be as such nature that it is in the public interest to receive it. The second step is that the defamatory has to be justified. [...]
[...] Therefore, a newspaper is able to publish a piece of information if identified as being in the public interest regardless of whether or not it was true, and still be supported by defence of occasion of qualified privilege. In that sense, it can be felt that the Reynolds defence has gone too far, since freedom of expression has in a way overstepped on sacred protection of reputation. [1999] 4 All ER 609 [2002] 1 All ER 653 [2006] 3 WLR 642 (HL). [...]
APA Style reference
For your bibliographyOnline reading
with our online readerContent validated
by our reading committee
