“Qualified Privilege is available as a defence where it is considered important that the facts should be freely known in the public interest.” (Ref.2)
Even though journalists in fact have no different rights than citizens of UK, following the Act of 1960 they have a protection of Qualified Privilege, which “gives as much protection to a publication as absolute privilege, provided that the defence’s requirements are met.” (Ref.2)
As a journalist, to have any type of privilege while reporting first of all, your report must be fair, accurate, without malice and on a matter of public interest. There is no privilege outside main proceedings like public meetings at that is where there will be no more protection. (Ref.6) Further more in detail Qualified Privilege applies:
(1) In reporting court, parliament you have a Qualified Privilege defence automatically when repeat/publish or broadcast defamatory remarks
(2) Qualified Privilege requires immediate publication, no errors, no malice ('fast, accurate, fair', malice can be lack of balance, so add "he denies the charges" and "the case continues".
(3) You never have Absolute Privilege as a journalist, though in practice if your report is free from error if it is published immediately then the Qualified Privilege confers a similar degree of protection.
(4) You have QP at a range of other public events (eg local government meetings, pressure group meetings, AGMs of companies (section 12 of the 1996 act + Clegg + Human Rights Act, section 10) so long as you allow the defamed person to deny it in the same report - "subject to contradiction".
(5) If you have ALL 10 POINTS of Reynolds Test, plus THE PUBLIC INTEREST - then you MAY have Qualified Privilege in making defamatory allegations outright, without quoting somebody protected by Absolute Privilege. (Ref.6)
There are two types of Privilege Absolute and Qualified Privilege.
Absolute Privilege, where it is applicable, is a complete answer and bar to any action foe defamation. It does not matter whether the words are true or false or they are spoken or written maliciously, but that a journalist may be reporting what is said on an occasion that is protected by absolute privilege it does not follow that his/her report is similarly protected. (Ref.2)
The only time journalists enjoy absolute privilege is when they are reporting court cases or the proceedings of certain of tribunal (“a fair and accurate report of judicial proceedings held in public within the United Kingdom, published contemporaneously.”) (Ref.2)
For Absolute Privilege reports must always be fair and accurate, “be fair overall and not give a misleading impression. Inaccuracies in themselves will not defeat privilege. Omissions will deprive a report of privilege if they create a false impression of what took place or if they result in the suppression of the case or part of the case of one side, while giving the other.” (Ref.2 Bennet v Newsquest, 2006). The report must be accurate, prove factual as well as published within contemporaneous proceedings (as soon as practicable). (Ref.2)
There are two levels of Qualified Privilege, in statements having qualified privilege without explanation or contradiction (subject to explanation on contradiction) as set in schedule I the 1996 Defamation Act, and statements having qualified Privilege if the other side of the story is given alongside the defamatory allegation (as set out in schedule II of 1996 Defamation Act) in statements privileged subject to explanation or contradiction. (Ref.2) For example ”the reports of parliamentary proceedings in Hansard have absolute privilege; so have reports published by order of Parliament (such us White papers). But the media’s coverage of parliamentary publications enjoys only qualified privilege. “(Ref.2)
Section I. STATEMENTS HAVING QUALIFIED PRIVILEGE WITHOUT EXPLANATION OR CONTRADICTION
A fair and accurate report of proceedings in public and anywhere in the world:
1. of a legislature,
2. before a court,
3. of a person appointed to hold a public inquiry by a government or legislature,
4. of an international organisation or an international conference
5. A fair and accurate copy of or extract from any register or other document required by law to be open to public inspection.
6. A notice or advertisement published by or on the authority of a court, or of a judge or officer of a court, anywhere in the world.
A fair and accurate copy of or extract anywhere in the world:
7. from matter published by or on the authority of a government or legislature
8. from matter published by an international organisation or an international conference. (Ref.6)
Section II - STATEMENTS HAVING QUALIFIED PRIVILEGE IF THE OTHER SIDE OF THE STORY IS GIVEN ALONG SIDE THE DEFAMATORY ALLEGATION
9. A fair and accurate copy of or extract from a notice or other matter issued for the information of the public by or on behalf of-
- a legislature in any member State or the European Parliament;
- the government of any member State, or any authority performing governmental functions in any member State or part of a member State, or the European Commission;
- an international organisation or international conference.
* In this paragraph "governmental functions" includes police functions.
10. A fair and accurate copy of or extract from a document made available by a court in any member State or the European Court of Justice (or any court attached to that court), or by a judge or officer of any such court.
11. A fair and accurate report of proceedings at any public meeting or sitting in the UK of-
- a local authority or local authority committee;
- a justice or justices of the peace acting otherwise than as a court exercising judicial authority;
- a commission, tribunal, committee or person appointed for the purposes of any inquiry by any statutory provision, by Her Majesty or by a Minister of the Crown or a Northern Ireland Department;
- a person appointed by a local authority to hold a local inquiry in pursuance of any statutory provision;
- any other tribunal, board, committee or body constituted by or under, and exercising functions under, any statutory provision.
(*all of these above are defined in the Act)
12. A fair and accurate report of proceedings at any public meeting held in a member State.
In this paragraph a "public meeting" means a meeting bona fide and lawfully held for a lawful purpose and for the furtherance or discussion of a matter of public concern, whether admission to the meeting is general or restricted.
13. A fair and accurate report of proceedings at a general meeting of a UK public company.
A fair and accurate copy of or extract from any document circulated to members of a UK public company-
- by or with the authority of the board of directors of the company,
- by the auditors of the company, or
- by any member of the company in pursuance of a right conferred by any statutory provision.
- A fair and accurate copy of or extract from any document circulated to members of a UK public company which relates to the appointment, resignation, retirement or dismissal of directors of the company.
A fair and accurate report of proceedings at any corresponding meeting of, or copy of or extract from any corresponding document circulated to members of, a public company formed under the law of any of the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man or of another member State.
14. A fair and accurate report of any finding or decision of any of the following descriptions of association, formed in the United Kingdom or another member State, or of any committee or governing body of such an association-
- an association formed for the purpose of promoting or encouraging the exercise of or interest in any art, science, religion or learning, and empowered by its constitution to exercise control over or adjudicate on matters of interest or concern to the association, or the actions or conduct of any person subject to such control or adjudication;
- an association formed for the purpose of promoting or safeguarding the interests of any trade, business, industry or profession, or of the persons carrying on or engaged in any trade, business, industry or profession, and empowered by its constitution to exercise control over or adjudicate upon matters connected with that trade, business, industry or profession, or the actions or conduct of those persons;
- an association formed for the purpose of promoting or safeguarding the interests of a game, sport or pastime to the playing or exercise of which members of the public are invited or admitted, and empowered by its constitution to exercise control over or adjudicate upon persons connected with or taking part in the game, sport or pastime;
- an association formed for the purpose of promoting charitable objects or other objects beneficial to the community and empowered by its constitution to exercise control over or to adjudicate on matters of interest or concern to the association, or the actions or conduct of any person subject to such control or adjudication.
15. A fair and accurate report of, or copy of or extract from, any adjudication, report, statement or notice issued by a body, officer or other person designated for the purposes of this paragraph-
- for England and Wales or Northern Ireland, by order of the Lord Chancellor, and
- for Scotland, by order of the Secretary of State.
An order under this paragraph shall be made by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
For short: with or ‘subject to’ explanation or contradiction when on:
- public proceedings in a legislature anywhere in world
- public proceedings in a court anywhere in the world
- public proceedings of a public inquiry anywhere in the world
- public proceedings of an international organisation or conference
In light of the above it is important to remember that associations have different status; findings and decisions are covered and proceedings are not.
Qualified Privilege IN COMMON LAW “(e.g. made up by judges, convention, etc, not by statue)
Qualified privilege in common law rests on the case of Toogood v Spyring (1834) 1 CM&R 181, 193, and on the idea of "the common convenience and welfare of society", that is, the public interest. The judge in case said: "The law considers such publication as malicious, unless it is fairly made by a person in the discharge of some public or private duty, whether legal or moral, or in conduct of his own affairs, in matters where his interest is concerned. In such cases the occasion prevents the inference of malice, which draws from unauthorised communications, and affords a qualified defence depending on the absence of actual malice. If fairly warranted by any reasonable occasion or exigency, and honestly made, such communications are protected for the common convenience and welfare of society; and the law has not restricted the right to make them within any narrow limits.” (ref.6)
‘Common law "duty" to say unwelcome things about people has been developed to extend statutory QP (1996 Act) to the discussion of various matters in the public domain. The common law has been bolstered by the general thrust of the Human Rights act, and for provisions of freedom of expression. Common Law QP has got stronger in recent years (balanced, as it happens, with the privacy provisions of the Human Rights Act.’ (Ref.6)
COMMON LAW Qualified Privilege - THE CLEGG CASE “Human Rights Act gets first test”
This was the first significant case where reference to the Human Rights Act was introduced.
On 3rd October 2000 the Law Lords were asked to use the new Human Rights Act for the first time - to defend the freedom of the press. The Times newspaper was seeking to overturn a libel ruling against the paper in the House of Lords. Five Law Lords were asked to overturn a ruling by the Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland that the paper was not legally protected when it published an allegedly damaging passage from material handed out at a press conference. The case was thought to be the first to be brought under the controversial Act since it came into force. The act enshrine the European Convention on Human Rights into UK law and hailed as one of the most significant changes to the British legal landscape since the Magna Carta. (Ref.8)
The press release from that date gives that The Times was sued for libel in Northern Ireland by Belfast solicitors, who represented paratrooper Lee Clegg. Further on, it gives details that Lance Corporal Clegg was convicted in 1993 of murdering a teenage joyrider and spent two-and-a-half years in prison before being cleared. Two years after that The Times reported on a press conference organised by a group campaigning for Clegg's release. “The newspaper's front page article included comments in a press hand-out from the group which criticised the law firm's handling of the soldier's defence.” (Ref.8)
McCartan Turkington Breen, the solicitors, sued for libel and were awarded £145,000 after the courts ruled the press conference was not a "public meeting" and the journalist did not have "qualified privilege", which protects the press. (Ref.8)
Lord Lester QC, for The Times, told Lords Bingham, Steyn, Hoffmann, Cooke and Millett the new Act required the courts to construe existing law - including defamation law - subject to the basic rights of the individual. ”He said the case required a balance between the right to free expression of The Times and the "respect for reputation" of the solicitors. Lord Lester argued it was incompatible with the right to free expression for The Times to be found liable because of a restrictive interpretation of what constituted a public meeting. Journalists, such as the article's author Paul Wilkinson, had been invited to the press conference as the eyes and ears of the public, he said (...).”(Ref.8)
Summarising the situation, what happened was that at a public meeting a group of anti-IRA activists in Northern Ireland it was claimed that a firm of solicitors were prosecuting a soldier (Clegg) who was accused of shooting innocent youths, in order to further the aims of the provisional IRA and that the lawyers were in effect ‘helping terrorism’ or were even (by innuendo) terrorist themselves. When these allegations were reported the lawyers sued for libel. The law firm won £145,000 damages, but the papers appealed and the decision was overturned. On appeal (2000) the lawyers lost, and the papers won, because judges said it was in the public interest that these allegations were made and discussed, so long as the lawyers’ own denials were properly reported (ie the reports were balance, free from factual error, free form malice as with QP in reporting court cases and other events in the schedule of the 1996 defamation act).
In 2000 Lord Bingham, commenting on the Clegg case (Ref.9) emphasised and strengthened the meaning of a “public meeting” which might be reported with a type of qualified privilege. Such a gathering is defined in the 1996 act in section 12 as:
(1) A fair and accurate report of proceedings at any public meeting held in a member,
(2) In this paragraph a "public meeting" means a meeting bona fide and lawfully held for a lawful purpose and for the furtherance or discussion of a matter of public concern, whether admission to the meeting is general or restricted. (Ref.6 &9)
An example when journalist would always have to confirm a statement before reporting would be when for example, we are on the meeting with person x who is talking about person y, when person x said that person y said something and person x claims that it is true that person y said it. We can only use that statement to be said by person x only when we confirm it with person x that he/she said it otherwise we mustn’t report that statement. However as it is written in the AN BILLE UM CHLU´ MHILLEADH 2006, DEFAMATION BILL 2006, the defence of qualified privilege shall not fail by reason only of the publication of them statement concerned to a person other than an interested person if it is proved that the statement was published to the person because the publisher mistook him or her for an interested person. (Ref.3)
If someone shouts something out from the gallery in the court it is still reportable as long as it is not defamatory.
Qualified privilege & Loss of defence of qualified privilege section of the document: AN BILLE UM CHLU´ MHILLEADH 2006, DEFAMATION BILL 2006, Mar a ritheadh ag Seanad E´ ireann, (...) the statement concerned, a reasonable statement by way of explanation or a contradiction, and has refused or failed to do so or has done so in a manner that is not adequate or reasonable having regard to all the circumstances. “Duty” means a legal, moral or social duty; “interest” means a legal, moral or social interest. (Ref.3)
In a defamation action, the defence of qualified privilege shall fail if, in relation to the publication of the statement in respect of which the action was brought, the plaintiff proves that— the defendant did not believe the statement to be true, the defendant acted in bad faith or out of spite, ill will or improper motive, the statement bore no relation to the purpose of the defence, or the manner and extent of publication of the statement exceeded what was reasonably sufficient in all the circumstances. (Ref.3)
Where a defamation action is brought against more than one defendant, the failure of the defence of qualified privilege in relation to one of the defendants by virtue of the application of subsection shall not cause the failure of the defence in relation to another of the defendants unless that other defendant was vicariously liable for such acts or omissions of the first-mentioned defendant as gave rise to the cause of action concerned. (Ref.3)
Section 11 of the Civil Liability Act 1961 is repealed. In this section of the document “interested person” means, in relation to a statement, a person who, under section, had a duty or interest in receiving the information contained in the statement. It shall be a defence (to be known, and in this section referred to, as the “defence of honest opinion”) to a defamation action for the defendant to prove that, in the case of a statement consisting of an opinion, the opinion was honestly held. Subject to subsection, an opinion is honestly held, for the purposes of this section, if— (a) at the time of the publication of the statement, the defendant believed in the truth of the opinion or, where the defendant is not the author of the opinion, believed that the author believed it to be true, (b) the opinion was based on allegations of fact— specified in the statement containing the opinion, or referred to in that statement, that were known, or might reasonably be expected to have been known, by the persons to whom the statement was published, or (ii) the opinion was based on allegations of fact to which— the defence of absolute privilege, or (II) the defence of qualified privilege, would apply if a defamation action were brought in respect of such allegations, and (c) the opinion related to a matter of public interest. (a) The defence of honest opinion shall fail, if the opinion concerned is based on allegations of fact to which subsection applies, unless— the defendant proves the truth of those allegations, or where the defendant does not prove the truth of all of those allegations, the opinion is honestly held having regard to the allegations of fact the truth of which are proved. (Ref.3)
To keep the qualified privilege when reporting you can report an honestly held opinion when it was said on the public meeting.
The defence of honest opinion shall fail, if the opinion concerned is based on allegations of fact to which subsection applies, unless— the defendant proves the truth of those allegations, or where the defendant does not prove the truth of those allegations— the opinion could not reasonably be understood as implying that those allegations were true, and Honest opinion. (ref.3)
Press conference [PRESSERS]
- they are classes as a public meeting (Lords 2000)
- written hand outs are also covered
- there are considerable risks of live broadcasting them
ALBERT REYNOLDS vs SUNDAY TIMES
Reynolds v Times Newspapers Ltd is a United Kingdom legal case in the House of Lords concerning qualified privilege for publication of defamatory statements in the public interest. (Ref.4)
The part of his life that is of most interest for the world of journalism was that “Reynolds was involved in a long-running libel action taken against British newspaper The Sunday Times on foot of an article published in 1994. It alleged that Reynolds had deliberately and dishonestly misled the Dáil regarding matters in connection with the Brendan Smyth affair that had brought down the coalition government. The newspaper claimed a defence of qualified privilege with regard to these assertions on foot of their supposed benefit to the public, but a High Court jury found in favour Reynolds in 1996. However, the jury recommended that no compensation at all be paid to the former Taoiseach. The judge subsequently awarded punitive damages of only one penny in this action, leaving Reynolds with massive legal costs, estimated at £1 million. (Ref.5)
“Albert Reynolds was the fifth leader of Fianna Fáil from 1992 until 1994. He “ became interested in politics at the time of the Arms Crisis in 1970, a hugely controversial episode in modern Irish history which saw two Cabinet ministers, Neil Blaney and Charles Haughey, sacked from the government over an alleged attempt to import arms to Northern Ireland. “(ref.3)
More details in here in the post on: Defamation and its adjustments throughout the cases - Reynolds v The Sunday Times, Jameel v Wall Street Journal and The Oryx Company v BBC
THE REYNOLDS CASE and the 10 POINT TEST
Lord Nicholls, the judge in the appeal stage of Albert Reynolds vs Sunday Times (1999), seemed to further define/extend QP-type protection against defamation, so long as the reporter was working without malice (as always with QP – you need lack of malice, accuracy and timeliness), had taken reasonable steps (not reckless) and so long as it was a matter of ‘public interest’ (ie not just a purely private matter). (Ref.6)
His ten point test of responsible journalism is well worth dwelling on because it forms a curriculum really for journalism of the highest quality which (quiet rightly) should enjoy a degree of legal protection. (Ref.6)
1. The seriousness of the allegation – the more serious the allegation, the more protection will be applied. Trivial allegations which are merely embarrassing would probably not enjoy the protection. Allegations about purely private matters would probably not enjoy protection.
2. The nature of the information and the extent to which the subject matter is a matter of public concern. This follows from schedules I or II of 1996 act - essentially anything related to matters that would be discussed in forums listed in schedule I (ie the discussion of politics, or the content and conduct of trials) would be protected and almost certainly matters that would come up in forums detailed in schedule II would also be covered. Again, allegations of a private nature are excluded (except in so far as they might impact on performance of public or official duties). NB Discussion of what goes on in companies would have more coverage if it is a floated public company with shareholders, or if it was significant in the economy as a whole.
3. The source of the information. The more authoritative the source, the more you are entitled to report their allegations, even if those allegations can not be proved or even if they turn out to be (to your surprise) incorrect. The test is – “would they have a reason to lie to me?”. So obviously chequebook journalism (where people are paid to make allegations) is not very safe, and would have less protection than allegations made by a responsible person with no axe to grind, and with a reputation for honesty. Also persons with a direct view of event or direct access to information are more to be believed (and therefore your report of what they say more protected) than second hand sources. Sources ‘on the record’ are more protected than anonymous sources. Two sources (or more) saying the same thing independently would of course be much stronger than a single source.
4. The steps taken to verify the information. There must be a reasonable attempt in the time available. The crucial thing is to try and put the allegations to the person being accused in order to get their side of the story. Obviously they will be evasive (especially if they have something to hide) and may give you the ‘run around’ in order to deny you protection under this very point in the ten point test. But you must either get to the person and make the allegation or, at the very least, be able to show a whole log of e-mails and phone calls where you make determined efforts to get their side of the story. A simple “they wouldn’t answer the phone” or “they were unavailable for comment” might not be good enough for this test (it was in fact where the daily Telegraph came unstuck in the Galloway case – see below).
5. The status of the information. You need to check that this is not an old allegation which has previously been denied. If the allegation had been previously dismissed by “an investigation which commands respect” then it would have no protection. For example if the allegation was about a doctor in a hospital. If the allegation had already been through some sort of internal enquiry at a hospital and had been dismissed, you may well lose your protection in repeating it, especially if you overlooked previous dismissal when you were trying to verify the information (see point 3 above – ‘steps taken to verify’).
6. The urgency of the matter. The judge recognised that news is “a perishable commodity” and that papers must compete to be first with the news. If the matter genuinely is urgent (eg to bring something like corruption to the attention of voters before polling day) then the other checks in the code might be less stringent and might still enjoy protection.
7. Whether comment was sought from the claimant – together with point 4 above and point 8 below, although the judge did say that putting allegations to the claimant was not necessary in every single case, if the case for protection on other counts was strong enough. As a practical point it is always wise to get the other side of the story and have them point out how or why the allegations might be untrue, then incorporate this in your report. Such a statement might also provide you with a ‘consent’ type defence to a libel action.
8. Whether the article contained the gist of the claimant’s side of the story (see above, points 4 and 7)
9. The tone of the article. If the angle of a piece is along the lines of allegations of X have raised concerns… this would probably more protected than a straightforward assertion that the allegations are fact. It is always important to attribute the allegations to a named source (‘on the record’) if possible. If the source is not named there must be a genuine and obvious reason for this (eg they fear getting the sack, or being attacked). But with ‘protected sources’ and ‘off the record’ there is always the separate (and growing) legal danger of action for breach of confidence.
10. The circumstances of the publication, including the timing. The allegations should be brought to public attention as quickly as possible. They should not be ‘saved up’ for commercial motives by the paper or broadcaster. This is similar to the need to publish/broadcast quickly in ordinary QP of court and parliamentary reports. (Ref.6)
THE LOUTCHANSKY CASE
“In this case (which is also of interest because of the separate problem of ‘internet libel’ – ie each time an article is loaded from a newspaper online archive it constitutes a fresh instance of ‘publication’ and can thus activate a libel action) the judge worked his way methodically through all ten points of the Reynolds ‘responsible journalism’ test. It is very useful to follow his points.” (Ref.6)
THE GALLOWAY CASE ( Reynolds defence fails)
The Daily Telegraph attempted a Reynolds defence to an action from George Galloway after the paper made very serious defamatory allegations against him, for which there was no defence of JUSTIFICATION (true and can be proves) or COMMENT or QP in the sense that it was reporting ‘second hand’ what had been said in court. Instead the paper was quoting a source it said it trusted. The Telegraph lost the case because the journalist failed the ’10 point test’ – in this case mainly because, despite a quick call to Galloway, the paper did not put all its allegations to Galloway for him to deny before they published the information. (Ref.6)
ANOTHER WORRYING REYNOLDS FAILURE –Mohammed Abdul Latif Jameel vs Wall Street Journal (Feb 2005)
The report could not prove the allegation, but believed that she had a Reynolds “duty” to report that the allegations were being taken seriously by various important and responsible people. But the allegations could not be proved, and therefore not defended with “justification” so she relied on a Reynolds defence. In her own view (and the view of many commentators) she though she had stayed within the 10 point test. But Lord Phillips on appeal did not agree. The Wall Street Journal loses. But the Wall Street Journal appealed. (Ref.6 &10)
More details in here in the post on: Defamation and its adjustments throughout the cases - Reynolds v The Sunday Times, Jameel v Wall Street Journal and The Oryx Company v BBC
There is no legal definition of 'the public interest' so rely on the definition given in the PCC code of conduct - the main points being
(1) exposing crime
(2) exposing health risk to the community
(3) exposing lying and hypocrisy in public life (Ref.6)
Interest
There may be exceptions to the clauses marked * where they can be demonstrated to be in the public interest.
1. The public interest includes, but is not confined to:
i) Detecting or exposing crime or serious impropriety.
ii) Protecting public health and safety.
iii) Preventing the public from being misled by an action or statement of an individual or organisation.
2. There is a public interest in freedom of expression itself. [CH adds - this has the nacking of the law, section 10 of the Human Rights Act]
3. Whenever the public interest is invoked, the PCC will require editors to demonstrate fully how the public interest was served.
4. The PCC will consider the extent to which material is already in the public domain, or will become so.
5. In cases involving children under 16, editors must demonstrate an exceptional public interest to over-ride the normally paramount interest of the child. (Ref.6)
References:
Ref.1) Media Law Lecture (updates, year 3, BA Journalism 2010) week 4
Ref.2) McNae’s essential law for journalists, D.Banks, M.Hanna (20th Edition 2009)
Ref. 3) AN BILLE UM CHLU´ MHILLEADH 2006, DEFAMATION BILL 2006, Mar a ritheadh ag Seanad E´ ireann, As passed by Seanad E´ ireann http://www.oireachtas.ie/documents/bills28/bills/2006/4306/b43b06S.pdf
Ref. 4) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reynolds_defence
Ref.5) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reynolds_defence
Ref.6) Notes on Qualified Privilege from the Media Law updates site from the website of ba Journalism 3rd year 2010, University of Winchester http://journalism.winchester.ac.uk/?page=228
7) PCC code of conduct http://www.pcc.org.uk/cop/practice.html
8) THE CLEGG CASE - BBC news online: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/954759.stm
9) Judgments - Turkington and Others (Practising As Mccartan Turkington Breen) v. Times Newspapers Limited (Northern Ireland) http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld199900/ldjudgmt/jd001102/turk-1.htm
10) Defamation and its adjustments throughout the cases - Reynolds v The Sunday Times, Jameel v Wall Street Journal and The Oryx Company v BBC http://veronicafryd.blogspot.com/2010/11/defamation-and-its-adjustments.html
