In two posts on Inforrm on the issue of journalistic privileges (‘Part One: Journalists and Citizens’, Part Two: Accreditation and Privileged Access’,) Hugh Tomlinson has recognised the difficulties in members of the press claiming special privileges in the light of the rise of ‘citizen journalism.’ He argues that such privileges “cannot be extended to all who are writing or investigating for possible publication,” and proposes instead limiting such privileges to those who voluntarily sign up (and I would hope) comply with a code and other requirements to be an accredited journalist to whom these privileges attach. Continue reading
The International Forum for Responsible Media Blog
Month: January 2012 (Page 4 of 4)
In R (on the application of Naik) v Secretary of State for the Home Department ([2011] EWCA Civ 1546) the Court of Appeal confirmed that the exclusion of an Indian Muslim public speaker from the United Kingdom after making statements which breached the Home Office’s “unacceptable behaviours policy” was lawful, and that any interference with his rights was justified. The UK Human Rights Blog posted previously on the original exclusion of Dr Naik from the United Kingdom, and reported on his subsequent address by sattellite link to the Oxford Union. Continue reading
Welcome to the first Inforrm round up of 2012. The legal vacation is not over until Wednesday but there is still plenty to report. Over the winter break Inforrm offered you a review of 2011 and the media law quiz of the year. Entries to the latter will be accepted until 13 January. Continue reading
When journalists find themselves facing court action which seeks to force them to reveal their unnamed sources, they tend to claim a ‘reporter’s privilege.’ This is based on the argument that it is a universal and primary tenet of journalistic codes of ethics which the individual journalist (and profession) will not yield in any circumstances. Such a position is thrown into doubt when the journalist is seeking to protect the supplier of false information. In this post, I will show how the conflict between the obligation to truth and protection of unnamed sources are resolved in both the ethical and legal spheres. Continue reading
On 12 December 2011 Mr Justice Tugendhat gave judgment on the assessment of damages in three actions by Matthew Cooper and Imaginatik plc (“the Company”) against Mark Turrell ([2011] EWHC 3269 (QB)). The case provides an interesting example of the court’s approach to the assessment of damages for misuse of private information and their relationship to libel damages. Mr Cooper was awarded privacy damages of £30,000 and, in addition, libel damages of £50,000. The Company was awarded damages for breach of confidence of £10,000 and libel damages of £30,000. Continue reading
Following the runaway success of our Inforrm 2010 Media Law quiz, we are repeating the exercise with some even tougher questions about the events of 2011. The prize in this year’s eagerly anticipated quiz is a copy of Adrian Bingham’s book “Family Newspapers? Sex, Private Life and the British Popular Press 1918-1978”. Continue reading
Recent Judgments
© 2026 Inforrm's Blog
Theme by Anders Norén — Up ↑