Find
Quick links
Full case report
Charman v Orion Publishing Group & others (No.3)
Case Reference [2006] EWHC 1756 (QB); [2007] 1 All ER 622
[2006] EWHC 1756 (QB); [2007] 1 All ER 622
Court Queen's Bench Division
Judge Gray J
Date of Judgment 13 Jul 2006
Summary
Defamation - Libel - Qualified Privilege - responsible journalism - fair and accurate court and parliamentary reports - reportage- whether the book was protected by qualified privilege
Facts
C was a police officer in the Metropolitan Police. He sought damages for libel in respect of allegations made in both the hardback and paperback versions of a book entitled, Bent Coppers. In June 2005 C successfully applied for trial by judge alone and for meaning to be tried as a preliminary issue. At a later hearing the Judge ruled that the words meant that there were cogent grounds to suspect C of corruption. The matter came before the Court to determine defences of qualified privilege.
Issue
(1) Whether the Books were published on an occasion of qualified privilege at common law as re-formulated by the House of Lords in Reynolds v Times Newspapers [2001] AC 127; (2) Whether the relevant passages of the Books were published on an occasion of qualified privilege pursuant to section 15(1) and Part 1(2) of Schedule 1 to the Defamation Act 1996 being a fair and accurate report of legal proceedings; (3) Whether the relevant passages of the Books were published on an occasion of qualified privilege pursuant to section 15(1) and Part 1(1) of Schedule 1 to the Defamation Act 1996 being a fair and accurate report of parliamentary proceedings in public. This again is a question of law although it was admitted; (4) Whether in addition to the statutory defences the other words complained of were matters closely related to the proceedings which the public were entitled to know and therefore protected by qualified privilege at common law.
Held
(1) The public did not have a right to know the information in the books because on the basis of the objective meaning that there were cogent grounds to suspect C there had been adoption of the allegations and the facts were not presented neutrally. That meant reportage failed. Since reportage failed there had been no verification and although D had made efforts to contact C who was unco-operative the objective meaning itself had not been put to C; (2) The passages on the Court case were accurate but not fair to C; (3) C accepted this was a fair and accurate report; (4) The Court did not consider it was necessary to deal with this since (2) failed.
Comment
Although the case establishes that, in theory, Reynolds can protect books, the defence failed again in this case. The interrelation between reportage and Reynolds is likely to be an area that will need further development. It is not clear - on the current state of the law - whether reportage (under Al-Fagih) is an aspect of Reynolds protection or a free-standing basis on which to avoid liability.
Download this Judgment
Instructing Solicitors
Simons Muirhead Burton for the Claimant; Wiggin LLP for the Defendants