Week #8: Media Law

Helen Dao

In the Flood v. Times Newspaper case in 2012, Times was sued over a publication that involved possible police corruption. The story named Sergeant Gary Flood in particular and provided details of allegations that led to internal inquiry within the police department.  The problem with the story publication in Times was that after it was informed that there was no evidence to be found to support the statements made in the story by Times months later, Times did not update their online article or attempt to rectify their misinformation in anyway. While the Reynolds privilege allows journalists to defend journalism that turned out to be wrong when they have acted responsibly when gathering their information, court appeals thought that the Reynolds privilege didn’t apply at all. It was decided that the main problem was the fact that the officer was named. In this case, the supreme court found that it was in the public interest to publish the name of the officer. One of the law lords, Lord Phillips, noted that it would have been impossible to publish the story of the allegations without naming the officer. The case of Flood v. Times Newspaper also balanced the police officer’s article 8’s rights:

“The creation of the Reynolds privilege reflected a recognition on the part of the House of Lords that the existing law of defamation did not cater adequately for the importance of the article 10 right of freedom of expression.”



Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: