Defamation defence part II (draft)

3. A local council's health department investigating an outbreak of food poisoning traces the source to turkeys sold at a supermarket. A press statement issued by the department warns anyone who has bought a turkey from the store not to eat it.

Through a clerical error, the statement gives the name of another supermarket which has nothing to do with the matter. Explain whether the press are liable to this store for defamation.

Answer:

The press are liable to this store for defamation.

According to the Defamation Act 1996, under qualified privilege defence, reports of numerous occasions receive Statutory Qualified Privilege, providing they are:

(a) fair; (b) accurate; (c) published without malice; (d) on a matter of public concern or benefit, and (e) subjected to publication if requested of a reasonable letter or statement by way of explanation or contradiction. Ethically, under the PCC Code, paper should correct significant inaccuracy anyway, even if not to blame.

From the case said above, the press statement issued by the department, it is covered by the qualified privilege defence Schedule 1 Part 2 paragraph 9:

Notice, reports or statements from government departments and bodies performing governmental functions (e.g. local authorities and the police)

However, the statement itself is inaccurate, therefore it is not subject to the requirement of fair and accurate copy and the press are liable to this store of defamation.

5. An MP has fought (both inside and outside parliament) for compensation in cases where former employees at steelworks have contracted cancer since the works closed. The MP issues a brief press statement following an inquest into the death of one of the former steelworkers. In the statement the MP criticises the coroner and says: “The inquest was just a whitewash”.

Is it safe to use the above extract from the statement? Give your reasons in the light of defamation.

Answer:

No, it is not safe to use the above extract from the statement.

According to The Defamation Act 1996 Qualified Privilege Defence Schedule I Part II, public meetings are protected by the part II: bona fide meetings lawfully held for a lawful purpose for the furtherance of discussion of matters of public concern whether admission to the meeting was general or restricted.

If “public meeting” comes within this definition, press conferences are covered, including handouts not read out.

However, press statements are not press conferences, so not covered by qualified privilege, unless the press statements are issued by government department and bodies performing governmental functions. e.g. local authorities and the police.

In this case, the MP is not qualified to issue the press statement according to the requirement, even though what the MP said might be fair, accurate, and without malice.

Therefore, it is not safe to the extract from the statement.

In the case of McCartan Turkington Breen v Times Newspaper Ltd, 2001. The Times had been sued over its report of a press conference called by a group of people (the Clegg Committee) campaigning for the release of a soldier Lee Clegg convicted of murdering a joyrider.

Then during the press conference, defamatory statements were made concerning the solicitors' defence of Private Clegg. On the next day, The Times reported those statements. This led to the libel proceeding by the solicitors of Private Clegg against The Times.

A jury awarded £145,000 damages. But on the appeal, Lord Bingham said that press representatives could be regarded either as member of the public themselves or as 'the eyes and ears of the public to whom they report.'

The court also ruled that a written press release, handed out at the meeting but not read aloud, and reported by the paper, was in effect part of the press conference proceeding.