The applicant wrote articles for a newspaper alleging unprofessional behaviour in an anonymous surgeon, leading to the death of a hospital patient three years earlier. The prosecutor had concluded that there was no evidence of a crime. There was inconclusive evidence of alcohol consumption and of shaking hands having affected his surgery. The articles quoted a widow: ‘How is it possible that a surgeon is allowed to conduct surgery with alcohol in his blood?’ The text on the front page attributed the patient’s loss of life to the surgeon’s ‘wet Independence Day’ A second article contained interviews as to the general desirability of surgeons remaining sober in surgery. No individuals were mentioned. A third article, referred to the first, asked how the ‘relatively young woman in good shape died from routine surgery’ and quoted extracts from the pre-trial investigation as to X’s regular hangovers and shaking hands. The journalist was charged with intentional defamation and the editor-in-chief with negligent abuse of the freedom of the press.
Held: Though the fines were modest, there was a violation of Article 10. Sir Nicolas Bratza, the President, dissented on the basis that neither the conviction of the journalist, nor the fine imposed on her, was disproportionate to the legitimate aim of protecting the rights of others. ‘By reason of the ‘duties and responsibilities’ inherent in the exercise of freedom of expression, the safeguard afforded by Article 10 to journalists in relation to reporting on issues of general interest is subject to the proviso that they are acting in good faith in order to provide accurate and reliable information in accordance with the ethics of journalism.’. Because the case concerned factual allegations the Court attached importance to the point that these duties and responsibilities had been respected. The national courts had not actually found that the facts presented were erroneous as such, but had rather based the conviction on her omissions of balancing information: ‘It is also of importance that the depicted events and quotations in the [third] article … were derived from the police’s pre-trial record, which was a public document. In the court’s opinion no general duty to verify … statements contained in such documents can be imposed on reporters and other members of the media, who must be free to report on events based on information gathered from official sources. If this were not the case the efficacy of Article 10 of the Convention would to a large degree be lost’.
Citations:
Unreported, 01 November 2004
Jurisdiction:
Human Rights
Cited by:
Cited – George Galloway MP v Telegraph Group Ltd QBD 2-Dec-2004
The claimant MP alleged defamation in articles by the defendant newspaper. They claimed to have found papers in Iraqi government offices after the invasion of Iraq which implicated the claimant. The claimant said the allegations were grossly . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Human Rights, Defamation
Updated: 05 April 2022; Ref: scu.220012