Foreign PIC Flashcards
Roberts v Gable 🏳✍️ UK
Facts: Gable took an interest in the far right, and had a publication called ‘Searchlight’ where he talked about it. He wrote an article about a serious altercation which arose at a BNP fundraiser – where it was alleged that the money for the fundraiser had been stolen.
BNP (British nation party – far right party)
* Gable didn’t care who stole the money, but that when they got into a disagreement they would turn up at each other’s houses threatening violence – he was emphasising what sort of people are in the BNP
* Gable said that he wasn’t trying to take sides but saying what they do – simply reporting on the trading of allegations between the party members
THIS WAS AN EXAMPLE OF NEUTRAL REPORTAGE
What does Ward LJ say in Roberts v Gable 🏳✍️ about neutral reportage and the repetition rule?
NEUTRAL REPORTAGE- “Is the neutral reporting without adoption or embellishment or subscribing to ANY belief in its truth of attributes allegations of both sides”
Repetition rule – “repeating someone else’s libellous statement is just as bad as making the statement directly”
Ward LJ distinguishes that of the repetition rule and the reportage defence – because the defendant is NOT claiming that the statement in question is true
What are the requirements of the reportage defence in England/Wales?
I. The information must be of public interest (The question is “does the public have the right to known that these allegation are being made one against the other?”)
II. The article is properly constructed in a way that must make it clear that the defamatory material is a) attributed to another piece of material AND b) is not being put forward as true
There also needs to be some sort of dispute between the parties
Once the first UK requirement for neutral reportage have been set how does that change the second part?
The factors change shape
- The verification of the truth of the statement is no longer essential (although you will need to verify that it WAS made
- The allegations become less serious because it was not suggested that it was true
- The lack of “status” of the information (eg not the subject of a careful investigation) does not matter if we are not looking at its truthfulness
- Reliability of the source becomes less important if the point is just that the source is making the allegations
- It did not matter that no comment was sought as the point was to present both sides of the story having a go at each other (and they almost certainly would NOT have talked to him anyway)
Grant v Torstar (Canadian case) 🇨🇦
Facts: Matter involving allegations of misuse of political influence in a local body to ensure a development of a golf course.
- Reynolds defence in Canada is called the ‘defence of responsible communication on matters of public interest’
- The court preferred this name to ‘responsible journalism’ as it is important to make clear that the defence applies to non-journalistic ways of communicating on matter of public interest, including online (eg social media)
Decided that this is a stand-alone defence – similar to in New Zealand (PIC)
Two main requirements in Grant v Torstar 🇨🇦 for their public communication defence?
- The publication was a matter of public interest; and
- The defendant was responsible, in that he or she was diligent in trying to verify the allegations, having regard to all the relevant circumstances
BUT the public interest is NOT synonymous with what interests the public
“Some segment of the public must have a genuine stake in knowing about the matter published”
What were some important points made out in Grant v Torstar 🇨🇦 about public importance?
- Not all matters of public interest are of equal importance
- The Court suggests that where the public importance of the subject matter is especially high, it will be easier, not harder, to show that the publication was responsible in the circumstances
Whether the plaintiff’s side of the story was sought and accurately reported:
- Usually it is important to get the plaintiff’s side of the story because a) it is unfair not to b) failing to do so heightens the risk of inaccuracy
- BUT the importance of this element depends on the degree to which seeking the plaintiff’s version would in fact have bolstered the FAIRNESS and ACCURACY of the report.
- The question here is whether if it was necessary to include the defamatory statement to communicate the story
NZ versus Canadian Public Interest Defence
The defence in Canada is formulates slightly differently- because there, being diligent in verifying the allegation is part of the responsibility requirement (not just part of a non-exhaustive checklist)
