The court considered the merits of a Reynolds defence: ‘reporting both sides, in a disinterested way, is an important element in the doctrine of reportage. That is not to say, of course, that a journalist or publisher will be deprived of the opportunity of such a defence merely by reason of having a particular personal or corporate political stance. What is important in this context is not so much the political stance of the defendant, but rather the way in which the particular dispute or controversy is being reported. There is no doubt, for example, that Mr Gable is far from neutral so far as the BNP is concerned, but that does not mean that he is incapable of objective and disinterested reporting of what goes on within the party, although naturally it may require that any such defence be scrutinised with particular care.’
Judges:
Eady J
Citations:
[2006] EWHC 1025 (QB), [2006] EMLR 23, [2006] EMLR 692
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
See Also – Roberts and Another v Gable and others CA 2-Nov-2006
. .
Appeal from – Roberts and Another v Gable and others CA 12-Jul-2007
The claimants appealed a finding of qualified privilege in their claim of defamation by the defendant author and magazine which was said to have accused them of theft and threats of violence against other members of the BNP.
Held: The appeal . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Defamation
Updated: 06 July 2022; Ref: scu.241662