This assignment undertakes a detailed discussion into the particular area of the

British Legal System entitled the law of Defamation. It will look into both the

positive and negative effects that this area of law has upon journalism and the

media in general with reference to a number of landmark cases. In order to do so

however it is primarily important to understand the qualification for such a law

and the basis of its presence within society as a whole.

Defamation is considered to be both a civil and criminal wrong and is simply the

making and publishing of a false statement about another those results in

damage to that person’s reputation. In 1936 Lord Atkin defined defamation as a

statement which tends to “lower a person in the opinion of right thinking members

of society”. There are two main branches of the overall law knows as libel and

slander however for the purposes of this essay, libel is prioritised as it is

defamation of a permanent form (whereas slander is considered to be non-

permanent or temporary) as is of relevance to journalism and media.

Obvious examples of libel include newspaper or magazine articles, any other

written material, pictures, paintings, statues, films, videos, records, compact

disks and cassettes however television and broadcasting is included under the

Defamation Act 1952 as is words spoken on stage during a play which are

defined as permanent under the Theatres Act 1968. Even though libel is shown

to cover a vast and somewhat vague amount of published materials, there are
obvious measures in place to ensure that all claims are reasonable including four

points that must be valid prior to a claim being held.

Even though many cases are often against newspapers, it could be argued that

this assessment is in place in their favour preventing any undue costs and

publicity for both the courts and media in particular. The claimant must prove that

the statement is untrue, capable of being defamatory, reasonably understood to

refer to the claimant and published within the meaning of law. This preceding

requirement therefore ensures that most cases are often won due to the

reasonable if not excessively justifiable amount of evidence.

One case that was ruled as being non-defamatory by the House of Lords

however was Charleston v News Group Newspapers (1995) where the News of

The World had published pictures of two stars of the Australian television show

Neighbours under a potentially defamatory headline. It was ruled however that

the paper had confirmed that the headline was merely tongue in cheek by clearly

explaining the full relevance of the images within the article itself. In this instance

the case was thrown out of court however many other cases are found to have

generally adverse results where juries are said to agree to award erratically high

amounts of compensation. Cases such as that of Tolstoy Miloslavsky v United

Kingdom (1995) where the defendant was awarded a sum of 1.5 million pounds

led to the implementation of two recognisable methods for the courts to reduce

the compensation amounts awarded. These were that the attention of the jury
must be drawn towards the actual meaning of money and if need be given

boundaries to adhere to by the judge (as a direct result of John v Mirror Group

Newspapers (1996)) and since 1990 the Court of Appeal as had the power to

reduce the amount on appeal.

One of the main problems that the media is made to face regarding any claim

against them is of course the public itself. The implementation of a jury is a

questionable decision throughout the legal system however; it is maintained in

order to ensure an arguably well balanced system which is partially upheld by lay

men of society itself. This could of course be both an advantage or disadvantage

for the media for instance, when in 2001 the Daily Mail were made to pay out

£100,000 to the then Tottenham Hotspur chairman Alan Sugar for publishing that

he was a “miser”, one could ponder as to whether the claimants fame had an

effect on the overall result. The same could be said about Grobbelaar v News

Group Newspapers Ltd (2001) whereby the claimant was a player for Liverpool

FC and (perhaps) subsequently received compensation of £85,000. Celebrities

and those that are commonly in the public eye are most likely to make claims of

defamation as they clearly have much more valuable reputations to defend.

One of the most safeguarded reputations as a result of the law of Defamation

was that of media tycoon Robert Maxwell - it wasn’t until his mysterious death

that the sheer volumes of allegations come to light. As a result of his death many

journalists were able to speak out about Maxwell’s controversial character. The
BBC reported that many of his wrong doings (many of which were illegal) ‘would

have come to light earlier except for Maxwell’s litigious nature which caused the

British press to be reluctant to make allegations against him.’ This is the most

obvious case of injustice carried out as a result of the law, whereby Maxwell

incorrectly prohibited freedom of speech within the British media by employing

such reasoning that the statements would defame an already tarnished

reputation.

This scandal was clearly unintended when the area of law was created however

in the case of Maxwell and others like him it encourages journalists to produce

more even-handed reporting. Even in the case of feature and satire articles there

are many legalistic limitations to be taken into consideration. It seems that even

internet service providers are unable to escape the law of defamation even

though the internet is entirely unregulated. Under the Defamation Act (1996) it

was held that there is no defence leaving the providers solely responsible.

Even though there are few cases brought to light by the media regarding internet

sources of defamation, it by no means confirms that there are none. It is often

found that many cases are settled out of court quickly and simply by means of a

smaller out of court settlement or sometimes even as little as a printed apology.

This method of speeding up the entire process is known as the fast track

procedure. It is often the option taken by those of the general public who aren’t

as literally effected by the wrongly published information as it is a cheaper

method (often a better choice due to the fact that defamation doesn’t qualify for

the help of legal aid) and constitutes a significant attempt to ensure the

proceedings are simplified.