Absolute privilege applies to places and occasions such as court proceedings and the House of Commons. It means that there is an allowance of complete freedom of speech even if the words spoken or written are classed as malicious. This would not be regarded as defamation. So people such as politicians could say whatever they please within the House of Commons without the fear of being sued for defamation.
Journalists, however, are not entitled to absolute privilege accept for when they are reporting court cases and only then does this apply if their report is:
“...a fair and accurate report of judicial proceedings held in public within the United Kingdom, published contemporaneously.”
-Banks, D, Hanna, M: McNae’s Essential Law for Journalists (20th edition) Oxford, Oxford University Press
This law is essential to journalists as what is said in court is usually highly defamatory. Without it, court reporting would be impossible.
Qualified Privilege:
Other than when reporting the proceedings of a court case journalists are only entitled to qualified privilege and this includes the reporting of parliamentary debates and proceedings. It is similar to absolute privilege however there must be no malicious motive and it must be of public interest/concern.
Other notes:
- A dead person cannot be libelled.
- A libel case cannot be called by anyone other than the person who has been libelled. It is a personal action.
Fair Comment:
This is another defence that is available to journalists which protects published opinion. That is anything that isn’t put forward as fact.
According to McNae’s this means that:
- The published comment should truthfully be the opinion of the person making it
- The comment should clearly be presented as opinion to avoid the confusion over readers thinking it is fact
- The comment must be based on provably true facts/privileged matter
- It must be of public interest