Global Freedom of Expression

Español العربية

Reynolds v. Times Newspapers

Closed Expands Expression

Key Details

  • Mode of Expression
    Press / Newspapers
  • Date of Decision
    October 28, 1999
  • Outcome
    Decision - Procedural Outcome, Dismissed, Affirmed Lower Court, Law or Action Upheld
  • Case Number
    [2001] 2 AC 127
  • Region & Country
    United Kingdom, Europe and Central Asia
  • Judicial Body
    Supreme (court of final appeal)
  • Type of Law
    Civil Law
  • Themes
    Defamation / Reputation
  • Tags
    Public Officials, Civil Defamation, Honor and Reputation

Content Attribution Policy

Global Freedom of Expression is an academic initiative and therefore, we encourage you to share and republish excerpts of our content so long as they are not used for commercial purposes and you respect the following policy:

  • Attribute Columbia Global Freedom of Expression as the source.
  • Link to the original URL of the specific case analysis, publication, update, blog or landing page of the down loadable content you are referencing.

Attribution, copyright, and license information for media used by Global Freedom of Expression is available on our Credits page.

Case Analysis

Case Summary and Outcome

The Judicial Committee of the House of Lords dismissed an appeal in a defamation case. Former Irish Prime Minister, Albert Reynolds initiated defamation proceedings against the Sunday Times, which published an article that claimed that Reynolds had misled cabinet colleagues and suppressed information. The House of Lords dismissed the argument that a generic defense should be available for the communication of political information, but affirmed that the traditional common law defense of qualified privilege is available to the media and established what came to be known as the “Reynolds test”.


Facts

Mr. Reynolds was the Taoiseach (prime minister) of Ireland until a political crisis led to his resignation. The following Sunday, the Sunday Times newspaper published an article detailing the events leading to Mr. Reynolds’ resignation. The article alleged that Mr. Reynolds had suppressed information and misled his cabinet colleagues, but did not report his response to these allegations as stated to the Irish parliament. Mr. Reynolds initiated defamation proceedings. At trial the jury held that the journalist, Mr. Ruddock, could not prove the allegations but that he had not acted maliciously in writing the article. The jury awarded zero damages, substituted by the judge for an award of one penny. The judge also ruled that the newspaper could not rely on the defense of qualified privilege.

Both parties appealed. Mr. Reynolds contended that the judge had misdirected the jury in certain respects; and the defendants cross-appealed against the judge’s decision on the point of qualified privilege. Mr. Reynolds’ appeal was admitted and the jury verdict was set aside. The Court of Appeal held against the defendants stating that they would not be able to rely on the defense of qualified privilege. The defendants were given leave to appeal against the ruling of the Court of Appeal given that the issue was of public importance.


Decision Overview

The House of Lords dismissed the appeal but ruled that the defense of qualified privilege could in principle extend to the media. Lord Nicholls delivered the leading opinion. Lord Cooke and Lord Hobhouse agreed with Lord Nicholls; Lord Steyn and Lord Hope would have allowed the appeal.

The first issue was whether a new category of qualified privilege should be created when qualified privilege would derive from the subject matter alone, namely political information. Counsel for Times Newspapers submitted that the common law could be developed in this direction, submitting that the privilege could be defeated if the plaintiff proved the newspaper failed to exercise reasonable care. Lord Nicholls disagreed that this was the appropriate solution, holding that, “[t]hat would not provide adequate protection for reputation. Moreover, it would be unsound in principle to distinguish political discussion from discussion of other matters of serious public concern.” Lord Nicholls also disagreed that the burden of proof should be on the plaintiff to show that the newspaper exercised reasonable care.

Instead Lord Nicholls held that the established common law approach to to qualified privilege remained essentially sound, and that its elasticity would enable the court to give appropriate weight to the importance of freedom of expression by the media on all matters of public concern. In applying the defence, he stated that the following matters should be taken into account:

  1. “The seriousness of the allegation. The more serious the charge, the more the public is misinformed and the individual harmed, if the allegation is not true.
  2. The nature of the information, and the extent to which the subject-matter is a matter of public concern.
  3. The source of the information. Some informants have no direct knowledge of the events. Some have their own axes to grind, or are being paid for their stories.
  4. The steps taken to verify the information.
  5. The status of the information. The allegation may have already been the subject of an investigation 
which commands respect.
  6. The urgency of the matter. News is often a perishable commodity.
  7. Whether comment was sought from the plaintiff. He may have information others do not possess or have not disclosed. An approach to the plaintiff will not always be necessary.
  8. Whether the article contained the gist of the plaintiff’s side of the story.
  9. The tone of the article. A newspaper can raise queries or call for an investigation. It need not adopt allegations as statements of fact.
  10. The circumstances of the publication, including the timing.”

This list is not exhaustive. The weight to be given to these and any other relevant factors will vary from case to case.” [p. 11,12]

Lord Nicholls emphasized that, “it should always be remembered that journalists act without the benefit of the clear light of hindsight. Matters which are obvious in retrospect may have been far from clear in the heat of the moment. Above all, the court should have particular regard to the importance of freedom of expression. The press discharges vital functions as a bloodhound as well as a watchdog. The court should be slow to conclude that a publication was not in the public interest and, therefore, the public had no right to know, especially when the information is in the field of political discussion. Any lingering doubts should be resolved in favour of publication.”

The second issue before the Court was whether the article would fall under the ambit of qualified privilege as newly elaborated. Lord Nicholls held that it did not, emphasizing in particular that Mr. Reynolds’ response had not been included in the story: “it is elementary fairness that, in the normal course, a serious charge should be accompanied by the gist of any explanation already given. An article which fails to do so faces an uphill task in claiming privilege if the allegation proves to be false and the unreported explanation proves to be true.”


Decision Direction

Quick Info

Decision Direction indicates whether the decision expands or contracts expression based on an analysis of the case.

Expands Expression

The decision expanded expression by confirming that the defence of qualified privilege in defamation law can be relied on by the media, and laid down what became known as the ‘Reynolds defense’, available to journalists in defamation cases so long as the information is of public interest and has not been published with malicious intent. While it does not add a new category of qualified privilege, it provides a ‘checklist’ of matters to be taken into account in assessing whether the requirements of qualified privilege have been met.

This decision and the ‘Reynolds test’ it propounds has been relied on in a number of high profile cases, including the Court of Appeal in Loutchansky v. Times Newspapers the House of Lords in Jameel v. Wall Street Journal. However, the test came to be criticized because courts were using the list of factors as a ‘checklist’ instead of treating it with the elasticity that Lord Nicholls had intended. Many ‘Reynolds defences’ failed for that reason. Section 4 of the Defamation Act 2013 abolished the test and instead created the defence of “publication on matter of public interest”.

Global Perspective

Quick Info

Global Perspective demonstrates how the court’s decision was influenced by standards from one or many regions.

Table of Authorities

Related International and/or regional laws

National standards, law or jurisprudence

  • U.K., Silkin v. Beaverbrook Newspapers Ltd. (1958), 1 W.L.R.
  • U.K., Adam v Ward [1917] AC 309
  • U.K., London Association for Protection of Trade v. Greenlands Ltd (1916), 2 AC
  • U.K., Blackshaw v. Lord, [1983] 2 All ER 311
  • U.K., Derbyshire CC v. Times Newspapers Ltd [1993] 1 All E.R. 1011
  • U.K., Defamation Act (1996)
  • U.K., Human Rights Act 1998, section 12
  • U.K., Cox v. Feeney (1863), 4F&F 13
  • U.K., Purcell v. Sowler (1877) 2 CPD 215
  • U.K., Allbutt v. General Council of Medical Education and Registration (1889), 23 QBD 400
  • U.K., John v. MGN Ltd, [1997] QB 586

Other national standards, law or jurisprudence

Case Significance

Quick Info

Case significance refers to how influential the case is and how its significance changes over time.

The decision establishes a binding or persuasive precedent within its jurisdiction.

Until the establishment of the Supreme Court, the House of Lords was the highest court in the United Kingdom and its judgments set binding precedent.

Decision (including concurring or dissenting opinions) establishes influential or persuasive precedent outside its jurisdiction.

House of Lords judgments are influential across the Commonwealth. This judgment has been cited in dozens of cases including in Australia, Hong Kong, South Africa, Tonga, India, New Zealand, Fiji and Canada as well as by the European Court of Human Rights.

The decision was cited in:

Official Case Documents

Have comments?

Let us know if you notice errors or if the case analysis needs revision.

Send Feedback