Cases

Charman v Orion Publishing Group & others (No.3)

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 the defence of reportage failed. There had been no verification. Although D had made efforts to contact C, the objective meaning itself had not been put to him.  Reynolds privilege therefore also failed.

(2) The passages reporting on the Court case were accurate but were not fair to C and as such not protected by s.15 of the 1996 Act.

(3) C accepted that certain passages were a fair and accurate report of Parliamentary proceedings.

(4) The Court did not consider it was necessary to deal with this given (2) above.

Also