The Times won a landmark judgment in the Supreme Court yesterday. The highest court in the land ruled decisively in favour of this newspaper on the role of the press and the public’s right to know.
This was a unanimous decision in support of responsible journalism in the public interest. Given the continuing inquiries into the behaviour of newspapers and future regulation, the Supreme Court’s ruling is a timely and critical statement on the value of press freedom.
Flood v Times Newspapers Limited revolved around what is the essential armour of the investigative reporter: the use of a public interest defence.
When a senior serving police officer is alleged to have provided Home Office intelligence to a Russian oligarch, it may seem scarcely credible that the public interest could be in doubt. Yet only now, after a six-year legal battle, has the Supreme Court finally judged that The Times was justified in publishing a story exposing potential police corruption.
In 2006 this newspaper learnt that Detective Sergeant Gary Flood was under investigation, after allegations that he had been paid by ISC Global (UK), a security company acting for wealthy Russian opponents of Vladimir Putin, for sensitive Home Office and police intelligence concerning Moscow’s desire to extradite Russians living in Britain.
Advertisement
By the time of publication, the home and office of Mr Flood, who was friends with an ISC partner and former detective, Keith Hunter, had been raided by investigating officers.
Mr Flood sued for libel. An internal police investigation then declared that it could find no evidence against him. This newspaper argued that there had been a clear public interest in reporting on the case. It cited the Reynolds defence, which was established after a libel suit brought in 1994 by Albert Reynolds, then the Taioseach.
This argument in the Flood case was accepted by the High Court, but the Court of Appeal subsequently disagreed, arguing that mere allegations could not justify publication in such detail; and that journalists’ attempts to verify their facts were inadequate. The Supreme Court has now overturned those findings.
When those in public office are accused of criminal wrongdoing, the public’s right to know should be obvious. Indeed, justice may demand it. As Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, the court’s president, noted: “There is no evidence that there had been any investigation before the police reacted to Times Newspapers Limited’s intervention.”
The public interest defence is no green light to smear. The Supreme Court has decided that The Times has met the required standards of responsible journalism. The Supreme Court recognised the public’s right to know both that an investigation was under way and its accompanying details.
Advertisement
Without such detail the article would have been disembodied. It is not for a judge, but for journalists and their editors to decide how best to present that information.
Newspaper reports are not legal judgments. Whereas the latter must constrain themselves to providing answers, the former must be free to ask questions, too. Such is the nature of cross-examination, the inquiry into the press by Lord Justice Leveson can give the impression of the media being held up to lawyerly standards, and found wanting.
This verdict is a welcome reminder that the press has a different role, and a vital one.