vicky11
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 1 year ago
#1
I find difficult to understand the case of Reynolds v times newspaper. why reylonds did not get a reward by the house of lords, even if the times nespapaer infringed his rumour in 2001 . If someone knows that case please i ask him to be more detailed by being simple
0
reply
Notoriety
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#2
Report 1 year ago
#2
(Original post by vicky11)
why reylonds did not get a reward by the house of lords, even if the times nespapaer infringed his rumour in 2001.
It seems you've not read the cause or any proper summary of the case. The House of Lords case is from 1999, so it seems unlikely the infringement occurred in 2001. If you don't read a reliable source, you obvious are unlikely to understand the circumstances of the case or the law discussed in relation to it.

In essence, there were three judgments. One in the High Court, appealed to the Court of Appeal (#2), which was again appealed to the House of Lords. What you need to know is what Lord Nicholls said in that case regarding the Reynolds defence:

My conclusion is that the established common law approach to misstatements of fact remains essentially sound. ...

Depending on the circumstances, the matters to be taken into account include the following. The comments are illustrative only. 1. The seriousness of the allegation. The more serious the charge, the more the public is misinformed and the individual harmed, if the allegation is not true. 2. The nature of the information, and the extent to which the subject matter is a matter of public concern. 3. The source of the information. Some informants have no direct knowledge of the events. Some have their own axes to grind, or are being paid for their stories. 4. The steps taken to verify the information. 5. The status of the information. The allegation may have already been the subject of an investigation which commands respect. 6. The urgency of the matter. News is often a perishable commodity. 7. Whether comment was sought from the plaintiff. He may have information others do not possess or have not disclosed. An approach to the plaintiff will not always be necessary. 8. Whether the article contained the gist of the plaintiff's side of the story. 9. The tone of the article. A newspaper can raise queries or call for an investigation. It need not adopt allegations as statements of fact. 10. The circumstances of the publication, including the timing.

This list is not exhaustive. The weight to be given to these and any other relevant factors will vary from case to case. Any disputes of primary fact will be a matter for the jury, if there is one. The decision on whether, having regard to the admitted or proved facts, the publication was subject to qualified privilege is a matter for the judge. This is the established practice and seems sound. A balancing operation is better carried out by a judge in a reasoned judgment than by a jury. Over time, a valuable corpus of case law will be built up.
The facts of the particular case are not all that important. The Court of Appeal ordered the case to be retried, the House of Lords was asked to settle a point of law, which it duly did. It would be the High Court, hearing the case again, that would determine if there are damages and the quantum thereof and not the House of Lords.

Again, this is not relevant; only the quoted text is. Even that, it is not wholly relevant as the Reynolds defence has been abolished by section 4(6) of the Defamation Act 2013: "The common law defence known as the Reynolds defence is abolished."

The lesson you have to learn from this is important. You have to go to the sources themselves, find the cases or their summaries, or your textbook, and have a re-read. Don't waste your time trying to piece the information together off Internet sources, poorly written notes, or what your friend says. This takes up a lot more time and effort, indues more stress, than smoothly going to the sources and finding the answer yourself.
0
reply
vicky11
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#3
Report Thread starter 1 year ago
#3
(Original post by Notoriety)
It seems you've not read the cause or any proper summary of the case. The House of Lords case is from 1999, so it seems unlikely the infringement occurred in 2001. If you don't read a reliable source, you obvious are unlikely to understand the circumstances of the case or the law discussed in relation to it.

In essence, there were three judgments. One in the High Court, appealed to the Court of Appeal (#2), which was again appealed to the House of Lords. What you need to know is what Lord Nicholls said in that case regarding the Reynolds defence:



The facts of the particular case are not all that important. The Court of Appeal ordered the case to be retried, the House of Lords was asked to settle a point of law, which it duly did. It would be the High Court, hearing the case again, that would determine if there are damages and the quantum thereof and not the House of Lords.

Again, this is not relevant; only the quoted text is. Even that, it is not wholly relevant as the Reynolds defence has been abolished by section 4(6) of the Defamation Act 2013: "The common law defence known as the Reynolds defence is abolished."

The lesson you have to learn from this is important. You have to go to the sources themselves, find the cases or their summaries, or your textbook, and have a re-read. Don't waste your time trying to piece the information together off Internet sources, poorly written notes, or what your friend says. This takes up a lot more time and effort, indues more stress, than smoothly going to the sources and finding the answer yourself.

THank you for your response
the enactment of human rights was at 1998. However, it says from that case the House of Lords developed the common law defense of qualified privilege to provide the press in appropriate circumstances with the defense albeit restricted of qualified privilege where the publication of information was in public interest. <<this restricted defense depended on the seriousness of the allegation and public concern and the news in the press were not considered to be liable information which the public had the right to know. >> This quote seems to me very unclear because the courts did not apply the echr article 10 freedom of expression. Thank you very much
0
reply
Forum User
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#4
Report 1 year ago
#4
(Original post by vicky11)
THank you for your response
the enactment of human rights was at 1998. However, it says from that case the House of Lords developed the common law defense of qualified privilege to provide the press in appropriate circumstances with the defense albeit restricted of qualified privilege where the publication of information was in public interest. <<this restricted defense depended on the seriousness of the allegation and public concern and the news in the press were not considered to be liable information which the public had the right to know. >> This quote seems to me very unclear because the courts did not apply the echr article 10 freedom of expression. Thank you very much
There is some discussion of Article 10 in a number of places in the speeches, which more or less just say that it accords with the common law principle.

The HRA wasn't in force at the time of the hearing or the judgment. It came into force in October 2000, I think. [I don't know if it would have had effect even if it had been in force, because the libel complained of was published in 1994, i.e. before the HRA had even been enacted. I don't know enough public law to hazard a guess on the retrospective effect of the HRA].
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

University open days

  • University of Hertfordshire
    All Subjects Undergraduate
    Wed, 11 Dec '19
  • University of Lincoln
    Undergraduate Open Day Undergraduate
    Wed, 11 Dec '19
  • Bournemouth University
    Undergraduate Mini Open Day Undergraduate
    Wed, 11 Dec '19

Do you work while at uni?

Yes I work at university (50)
32.89%
No I don't (71)
46.71%
I work during the holidays (31)
20.39%

Watched Threads

View All