BNP case may aid reporting of allegations against politicians

A libel case between two members of the British National party and the anti-racist magazine Searchlight, which goes to the court of appeal this week, could make it easier for the media to report unverified allegations of misconduct against politicians without ending up in court.

The BNP members, brothers Christopher and Barry Roberts, are appealing against a high court ruling last May that the magazine's report of a feud between party factions amounted to "reportage" on a matter of public interest. Mr Justice Eady ruled that the report was protected by "qualified privilege". This means that even if the allegations are untrue, the publishers cannot be held liable unless they were acting with malice - knowing they were untrue or reckless as to whether they were true or not.

The "neutral reportage" defence to libel originated in the US but is a developing area of English law. The appeal court's ruling is expected to give fresh guidance to the media on when it will apply. It was unsuccessfully raised as a defence by the Daily Telegraph when the paper was sued by George Galloway, who won £150,000 over a report claiming documents found in Baghdad during the Iraq war alleged that he was in the pay of Saddam Hussein. Mr Justice Eady - the same judge as in the BNP case - found that the paper did not merely report the allegations but "embraced them with relish and fervour". Had the Telegraph simply reported the contents of the documents and allowed Mr Galloway a fair chance to reply, it would have been reportage, the appeal court said later. In the few cases which have gone to court so far, judges have made clear that there is no duty on the media to verify the accuracy of any allegations before they report them, as long as they are not putting them forward as true.

This week's appeal concerns an October 2003 article in Searchlight reporting the contents of a letter from members of a faction opposing Nick Griffin, the party leader. The letter alleged that Christopher Roberts stole money from a BNP rally and only returned it after threats to report him to the police, and that he and his brother had threatened to "kneecap, torture and kill" opponents and their families. The judge held that it had been reasonable for the reporter not to approach the Roberts brothers to ask whether the claims were true. He had reported the cross-allegations between the two factions and "the readers would understand that each of the factions was denying impropriety but accusing the other".

The development of reportage as a defence appears to be at odds with a longstanding rule of English libel law, which says that it is no defence to argue the report was only repeating an allegation made by someone else. One leading libel QC said: "This is a startling development which if right will produce fundamental revision to the basic principles of libel law."

Guardian