2. On 2 June 2006 the appellant (“TNL”) published an article (“the Article”) which defamed the respondent, (“Sergeant Flood”), who is a Detective Sergeant in the Extradition Unit of the Metropolitan Police Service (“MPS”). The Article stated that allegations had been made against Sergeant Flood that had led Scotland Yard to investigate whether he was guilty of corruption. The police investigation subsequently ended with a finding that there was no evidence that Sergeant Flood had acted corruptly and the trial judge, Tugendhat J accepted Sergeant Flood’s evidence that he was not guilty of corruption. That finding has not been challenged. The issue before the Court is whether TNL are protected from liability to Sergeant Flood in defamation under the doctrine known as Reynolds privilege. Put shortly Reynolds privilege protects publication of defamatory matter to the world at large where (i) it was in the public interest that the information should be published and (ii) the publisher has acted responsibly in publishing the information, a test usually referred to as “responsible journalism” although Reynolds privilege is not limited to publications by the media – see Reynolds v Times Newspapers Ltd [2001] 2 AC 127.

3. Tugendhat J held that TNL are protected by Reynolds privilege [2009] EWHC 2375 (QB) [2010] EMLR 169, but his decision was reversed by the Court of Appeal, Lord Neuberger MR, Moore-Bick and Moses LJJ, [2010] EWCA Civ 804 [2011] 1WLR 153. The major reason for the Court of Appeal’s decision was their view that the journalists responsible for the Article had failed to act responsibly in that they had failed adequately to verify the allegations of fact that it contained.

The Article

4. The Article had the following heading, the first sentence of which was in

large bold letters:

“Detective accused of taking bribes from Russian exiles. Police investigating the alleged sale to a security company of intelligence on the Kremlin's attempts to extradite opponents of President Putin, Michael Gillard reports”.

The relevant part of the text of the Article was helpfully numbered by the judge for purposes of reference. I shall follow the example of the Court of Appeal in adopting that numbering.

“1. Allegations that a British security company with wealthy Russian clients paid a police officer in the extradition unit for sensitive information are being investigated by Scotland Yard.
2. The officer, who has been moved temporarily from his post,…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Flood v Times Newspapers Ltd

Details

AGLC: Flood v Times Newspapers Ltd [2012] UKSC 11
Case: [2012] UKSC 11
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Supreme Court heard an appeal by Times Newspapers Limited (TNL) against a decision of the Court of Appeal that TNL were liable to pay damages to Sergeant Gary Flood for defamatory articles published about him in The Times. The articles reported allegations that Sergeant Flood had been involved in corrupt activities while working in the Extradition Unit of the Metropolitan Police Service. The articles included details of an investigation by the Serious and Organised Crime Agency into the allegations, which was instigated after TNL had contacted the police to report that it intended to publish the allegations. The police investigation found no evidence that Sergeant Flood had acted corruptly and he was not charged with any offence. The Supreme Court found in favour of TNL and held that the articles were protected by Reynolds privilege, a public interest defence to defamation. The Supreme Court found that it was in the public interest that the articles be published, because the subject matter of the articles was of high public interest and the journalists had acted responsibly in publishing the articles. The Court found that the journalists had acted responsibly by taking reasonable steps to verify the allegations, and the journalists had not adopted the allegations as true. The Supreme Court found that the Court of Appeal had erred in holding that the journalists had not acted responsibly because they had not taken reasonable steps to verify the allegations. The Supreme Court held that there was no obligation to verify the allegations and that the journalists had acted responsibly by publishing the allegations as part of an investigation into the allegations. The Supreme Court held that the Court of Appeal should not have interfered with the trial judge’s findings on the Reynolds privilege issue.

Orders