Judge supports media’s defence of public interest in libel cases

A HIGH Court judge has set out a more liberal interpretation of the law in relation to the circumstances in which the media may defend the publication of certain material, even if that material is incorrect, on grounds that publication was in the public interest.

Mr Justice Peter Charleton said he believed there is a general public interest in the public receiving information — even if that information turns out to be incorrect — on matters of public interest, such as their safety and security and their right to judge public representatives fairly “on the basis of real information”.

There was also a duty on journalists to responsibly gather and report such information, he said. The conduct of journalists in relation to how they gathered and reported information should be taken into account in libel claims.

The judge’s detailed ruling in PR consultant Monica Leech’s unsuccessful defamation proceedings will have significant implications for other media organisations in libel claims. He delivered the ruling at the outset of Ms Leech’s action in the absence of the jury after lawyers for Ms leech objected to the Irish Independent making such a defence. The ruling could not be reported until the conclusion of the proceedings.

Among the issues addressed in his ruling were whether a defence of public interest exists in defamation proceedings and, if so, how was it to be defined.

The judge said the test in relation to qualified privilege involved a situation where one side has an interest in receiving information and another party has a duty to pass the information on to them.

Even if it turned out that information was incorrect, qualified privilege still arose.

He believed there was such a general public interest, the judge said. The public has an interest in many matters as opposed to “being interested” in matters. Being interested would refer to matters that were merely titillating or salacious gossip.

The judge referred to the House of Lords judgment in the 2005 Jameel case, which set out a test involving an examination of the professional conduct by the reporting journalist or other party.

On the basis of the Jameel and Reynolds cases, he ruled that a public interest defence can arise where the subject matter of a publication, radio or TV report, “considered as a whole”, was of public interest.