Want to talk to an expert employment law solicitor?

You'll receive a callback from a specialist within an hour

The facts in Flood v Times Newspapers

Detective Sergeant Flood (“the Respondent”) is an employee of the Metropolitan Police Service. The Respondent was investigated by the Metropolitan Police in 2006 for alleged corruption, with the investigation subsequently concluding that Sergeant Flood was not guilty of corruption. On 2 June 2006 The Times wrote an article on the Respondent which defamed him.

The High Court that the Respondent had been defamed but that the Appellant could rely on the Reynolds defence. The Court of Appeal overturned the High Court’s judgment, finding that the Appellant was not entitled to rely on the Reynolds defence. The Appellant subsequently appealed the decision to the Supreme Court on the principal point that a Reynolds defence applied.

The law relating to defamation

To succeed in a case for defamation a Claimant (the person or business defamed) must show on the balance of probabilities that:

  1. That a defamatory statement has been made (“defamation”)
  2. That this defamatory statement referred to the Claimant (“referral”)
  3. That this defamatory statement referring to the Claimant was published to a third party (“publication”)

Defamation occurs if a statement is published in permanent (libel) or semi-permanent (slander) form – respectively, for example, in a newspaper or by word of mouth. For a statement to be defamatory it must lower the Claimant in the eyes of right-thinking persons – essentially that it would reasonably damage the reputation of the Claimant.

The defamatory statement must refer to the Claimant and may be defamatory even if the offending statement does not mention the Claimant by name. Further, it is not even necessary that the Defendant (the person or business doing the defaming) should have intended that the statement refer to the Claimant (as in the “Artemus Jones” case).

Further, the defamatory statement referring to the Claimant must have been published to at least one other person other than the Claimant.

There are a number of defences available to a Defendant if the proving of defamation succeeds, including:

  1. Truth
  2. Consent of the Claimant
  3. Fair comment
  4. Privilege (qualified and absolute)

The Appellant in this case was relying on qualified privilege as a defence. We will therefore now look at the component parts of this defence.

In order to succeed in demonstrating that the Reynolds defence applies a Defendant must demonstrate that:

  1. That the publication of the article within which the defamatory statement is contained is in the public interest; and
  2. That the Defendant has acted responsibly in publishing the information

The Supreme Court’s decision in Flood v Times Newspapers

The Supreme Court found that a defamatory statement referring to the Claimant had been published by the Appellant. It did, however, find that the Reynolds defence applied and that the Appellant was therefore protected from liability. The Supreme Court determined that the publication of the article was in the public interest as the story was of high public importance and that the publication had the legitimate aim of ensuring that a fair and thorough investigation was carried out by the Metropolitan Police. Lord Dyson further commented that the publication of stories of police corruption would generally fall under a Reynolds defence should the test of responsible journalism be met.


Tagged with →  

Want to talk to an expert employment law solicitor?

You'll receive a callback from a specialist within an hour

Share →

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

 

Our awards

Request a callback

Your name

Your email

Your telephone number

Contact us

Please feel free to discuss your own position and concerns. Contact your nearest office on:

T: 020 3397 3603
E: enquiries@redmans.co.uk
W: www.redmans.co.uk

Testimonials

4.76 Average

123 Reviews

Jake L

Chris is very professional and calm. Very attentive and patient, been a positive experience having Chris represent me, and would recommend him.

Posted 3 weeks ago

Anonymous

Excellent service. It was a pleasure to work with Chris H, who is brilliant at what he does and very efficient. Their Senior Associate Rana T. is also very knowledgeable and resolves any queries speedily and efficiently. My issue could unfortunately not be resolved, but that was due to my employer and not the firm. Redmans however did all they could. I would definitely recommend them.

Posted 3 weeks ago

Anonymous

Very pleasant and quick to deal with. Mnay thanks.

Posted 3 weeks ago

Anonymous

Easy to get hold of. Quick.

Posted 3 weeks ago

Owen J

Very helpful, efficient service.

Posted 3 weeks ago

Anonymous

I am very lucky that I worked with Mr. Chris Hadrill and he managed my case very progressively with an analytical approach and trustfully. Of course with a very positive result. I strongly recommend Mr. Hadrill to any one seeking for a successful result from a highly qualified solicitor.

Posted 1 month ago

Kulbir S

Amazing, quick friendly service from Chris from the start and Caroline. They made me feel at ease during a difficult time, they understood and advised accordingly and I am really happy with the outcome of my case. Will always advise anyone who needs legal advice to contact Redmans, I’m so glad that I did and can confidently say I don’t think any other firm could have handled my case any better. Well done guys, wish you all the best and please keep doing what your doing, simply the best!

Posted 1 month ago

Mark A

Excellent service - rapid and “to the point” advice given to ensure meeting the target time frame

Posted 1 month ago

Anonymous

Chris Hadrill kept me sane during the negotiations with my employer. He was courteous professional and he cared about doing the best he could for me. I will use Redmans again if ever I need an employment solicitor. Excellent service.

Posted 1 month ago

Muhammad Z

Awesome services. Professionals at their best .

Posted 1 month ago

Anonymous

Thanks for the advice and for negotiating a good outcome. Good to have the support at a very stressful time

Posted 1 month ago

Chloe F

My solicitor at Redmans was very helpful and efficient. Really pleased with the smooth service.

Posted 1 month ago

Anonymous

Chris was absolutely excellent. Clear and concise, offering sound advice.

Posted 1 month ago

Tim O

Experienced and competent advisors

Posted 1 month ago

Rachel A

Quick and expert assistance. I would highly recommend Chris for any of your legal needs.

Posted 1 month ago

Joe S

I was very happy with the service provided by Chris and the team at Redmans Solicitors. I felt very comfortable discussing all matters with Chris and am very grateful for all the help and guidance I was given throughout the whole process. I would definitely recommend Redmans Solicitors to friends and family!

Posted 1 month ago

Anonymous

I had a very good experience working with Chris Hadrill during a difficult and emotional time. This held true from the moment I spoke to him on the phone, to the end of the process. Overall, he was attentive, professional and highly supportive. He provided sound advice and clarity. It was the reviews that led me to Redmans! I was very happy to know they were all true. I highly recommend working with Redmans Solicitors. Thank-you to the entire team!

Posted 1 month ago

Anonymous

Good service

Posted 1 month ago

Anonymous

Excellent professional service. Highly recommend.

Posted 1 month ago

Rob O

Very prompt response and I could not fault the service. My solicitor listened carefully to the details of my case and I felt very confident in the advice I was offered. All emails and work done on my behalf with my former employer was of the highest standard and Redmans helped take a lot of the stress out of the situation for me.

Posted 2 months ago

Mike H

Very professional, friendly, proactive. I would highly recommend Redmans.

Posted 2 months ago