skip to nav

Good news for British journalists...

...thanks to American diligence, says don berry, as the Law Lords deliver a landmark libel ruling

Britain's "top judges", as we Fleet Streeters tend to call any judicial figure above the rank of magistrate, rarely find themselves being praised by British newspapers. More often than not they are portrayed as out-of-touch toffs who live on a different planet from the rest of suffering humanity.

But at the moment, the really top judges, the Law Lords no less, are enjoying unaccustomed praise from journalists. The reason: last week the learned men delivered a landmark ruling in the press's favour. Well, up to a point, Lord Copper...

The good news is that the ruling supported responsible investigative journalism. Significantly, though, the victory was achieved by the reporters of an American publication. So, as well as rejoicing, Fleet Street should pause to study how the Yanks triumphed on a battleground where several

The Law Lords’ ruling last week supported responsible investigative journalism

Brits have previously failed.

A Saudi businessman, Mohammed Jameel, sued the Wall Street Journal for libel after it reported that, at the request of the US, his accounts were being monitored by Saudi authorities investigating terrorist financing. The paper, which was investigating the financing of terrorism in the wake of 9/11, did not say he was in any way guilty.

Jameel chose to sue the WSJ in London. In court, the paper relied on the so-called Reynolds defence which in effect says that, if a paper has information of public interest, and if it reports and edits this information in a responsible manner, it need not prove the information is true. The "ifs" are, of course, extremely important.

The defence did not succeed initially: the WSJ lost in the high court and again in the court of appeal. But last week the Law Lords accepted their defence and overturned the earlier rulings.

Oddly, the Reynolds defence is named after a case in which the newspaper actually lost. A comparison of the journalistic performances