Tort Law Case Study Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2500 words

Tort Law - Case Study ExampleCharman argued that the earmark was defamatory. The evaluator decided that the book as a whole would mean that Charman had abused his position by committing substantial fraud as a police officer in collusion with a fraudster from whom Charman and a fellow police officer received payments. The judge find the denial of qualified privilege without merit stating that although the difficulty of corruption in the police force was a matter of overt interest, the subject books were neither reportage nor answerable journalism because the references approach was not able-bodied to achieve the necessary neutral balance. Both the appellants argued that the judge committed an error in rejecting the responsible journalism defence.In allowing the appeal, the court ruled that the reportage defence would be established where the effect of the report as a whole was not to adopt the truth of what was being said but to record the occurrence that the statements that were defamatory were make.2 The instant oddball was a long way from the confines of reportage properly understood because a defining characteristic of reportage was missing. The book was not written to report the fact that allegations of corruption were made against Charman and the fact that he denied them and accused the investigating officers of plotting against him. The whole effect of the book was, as its sub-title made plain, to tell the inside story of Scotland Yards battle against police corruption and that tale included Charmans alleged corruption. The book was not a neutral, disinterested report, even if the excerpts report were factually accurate. Furthermore, it was stated that the application of the Reynolds principles had recently been clarified by the House of Lords in Jameel v Wall Street Journal Europe3 such that if the publication, including the defamatory statement, passed the public interest test, the inquiry then shifted to whether the steps taken to gather and publish the information were responsible and fair. In assessing the responsibility of the article, weight had to be given to the overlord judgment of the journalist. The Reynolds principles were not intended to present an onerous obstacle to the media in the discharge of their function. Proper care was the essence of responsible journalism and the test was whether the author acted with proper professional responsibility and his assertion that he did not intend to convey the imputated words was a relevant fact to consider.4 The judge thus erred in not considering the book as whole and failing to consider what the author omitted in his editorial judgment. Applying the Reynolds principles in the fall of Jameel, the court ruled that the authors writings were responsible journalism. Hence, the passages in the book complained by Charman were protected by qualified privilege.In unanimously upholding the Wall Street Journal Europes appeal in the abovementioned Jameel case, the House of L ords has surd new life into the doctrine of qualified privilege and has reanimated its decision in Reynolds v Times Newspapers.5 The decision has been widely welcomed, especially in light of the hesitant application of the Reynolds doctrine by our lower courts over the last seven years. It is fitting that such a decision came in a case related to perhaps the most important and newsworthy story of the 21st century so far, namely the events of September 11, 2001 and their aftermath. Jameel contains some strong statements in promote