WHEN the House of Lords delivered its judgment in the case of Albert Reynolds v Times Newspapers Ltd in October 1999, it was thought to be the dawn of a new age in public interest reporting. As long as the subject matter of an article was in the public interest, i.e. the public had “a right to know it”, it did not matter if it was true or false — all the journalist had to do was prove that he had behaved responsibly in putting the article together. But it was not to be. Ever since then the libel judges at the Royal Courts of Justice have imposed impossible standards on journalists and thrown out case after case after applying the law as it used to be. If any one of the “matters” set out by Lord Nicholls in Reynolds, on what amounted to responsible journalism, was breached, the defence was automatically forfeited.

Instead of using the guidelines in a flexible and practical way, Mr Justice Gray and Mr Justice Eady have erected them as hard and fast hurdles which have to be cleared before the media can begin to take the benefit of the Reynolds “public interest” defence. And this is in a context where libel claimants have built-in advantages. Only in this area of law are all the presumptions in favour of a claimant.

The Reynolds defence was intended to rectify that imbalance in the law. As Lord Hoffmann openly admitted in Jameel, “The House attempted to redress the balance in favour of privacy in Campbell v MGN Ltd and in favour of greater freedom of the press to publish stories of genuine public interest in Reynolds. But this case suggests that Reynolds has had little impact upon the way the law is applied at first instance.” Most media lawyers would agree and point the finger at the two judges in charge of libel actions, Mr Justice Eady and Mr Justice Gray. Both came in for criticism in Jameel on how they have applied the old law in what should be a new context and effectively denied the press the benefit of the “Reynolds public interest” defence over the past six years.

From now on, the House of Lords will have breathed new life into responsible investigative journalism. The judgment is as refreshing as it is overdue.

Alistair Brett is legal manager of Times Newspapers

Explore Law

• Columnists

• Law Panel

• Law Reports

• Student Law

Times Recommends

• The best legal yarns this Christmas
• Legal school 'earned £1m by exploiting bar course'
• Axe may fall on 5,000 more City lawyers