The issue rises on account of Birm's attack if whether GNN is liable for the defense of Reynold's privilege. In Birm’s attack, twenty-one people were killed when two bombs ran off with close to a hundred people being hurt in a packed bar in Birm. Because of the intensity of the offence, six individuals were caught, tried and later charged. A government forensic scientist, Dr. Freddie testified at the trial, giving evidence that the suspects hands had been tested with Griess test in which it returned positive for nitroglycerine. He also stated that no other substances can cause the same result. New criminological confirmation was brought into question when a documentary on The Birm bombings was broadcast. The evidence that was discovered by
…show more content…
This elasticity enables the court to give appropriate weight, in today's conditions, to the importance of freedom of expression by the media on all matters of public concern.
"Reynolds privilege" was known as a test which required that the publisher have an obligation to distribute the material, and the audience to have an eagerness for getting the material, considering whether the individual had fulfilled the ten criteria’s which were namely:
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 …show more content…
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.
The ten criterions were essentially a guideline to determine “qualified privilege” however, the defamation bill, section 4 of the Defamation Act 2013 was established in the matter of public interest through a publication. Subsequently, replacing Reynold’s defense which was a common law and abolishing subsection 4(6). [7]. The Bill presented just nine of the ten of Reynold's elements which the court may have favored to decide if a person has acted mindfully in the publication of material which is false and defamatory.
Accordingly, Reynold’s privilege is a prominent source of law relevant to the case of Flood v Times newspaper limited [2012] UKSC 11. In the
This elasticity enables the court to give appropriate weight, in today's conditions, to the importance of freedom of expression by the media on all matters of public concern.
"Reynolds privilege" was known as a test which required that the publisher have an obligation to distribute the material, and the audience to have an eagerness for getting the material, considering whether the individual had fulfilled the ten criteria’s which were namely:
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 …show more content…
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.
The ten criterions were essentially a guideline to determine “qualified privilege” however, the defamation bill, section 4 of the Defamation Act 2013 was established in the matter of public interest through a publication. Subsequently, replacing Reynold’s defense which was a common law and abolishing subsection 4(6). [7]. The Bill presented just nine of the ten of Reynold's elements which the court may have favored to decide if a person has acted mindfully in the publication of material which is false and defamatory.
Accordingly, Reynold’s privilege is a prominent source of law relevant to the case of Flood v Times newspaper limited [2012] UKSC 11. In the