Flood v Times Newspapers Ltd
A newspaper that reported that a police officer was being investigated for corruption was protected by Reynolds privilege, because it had acted responsibly in publishing the allegations and the fact of the investigation.
Facts
The Times published an article saying that Detective Sergeant Flood, a Metropolitan Police officer, was being investigated over allegations that he had received bribes from a Russian businessman in return for selling him confidential information about extradition requests. The article named him and gave details of the allegations. The investigation later cleared him. He sued for libel.
Legal principle
The Supreme Court held that the article was protected by Reynolds privilege. Lord Phillips said that there was a public interest in reporting that the police were investigating serious allegations of corruption against one of their own officers, and that naming the officer was justified as part of that story. The journalists had acted responsibly, by checking the information, giving him an opportunity to respond, and reporting the allegations and the investigation fairly. The court considered whether the newspaper had a duty to update the online version of the article after he was cleared.
Related cases on defamation and privacy
- Berkoff v Burchill [1996] 4 All ER 1008
- Bloomberg LP v ZXC [2022] UKSC 5, [2022] AC 1158
- Campbell v MGN Ltd [2004] UKHL 22, [2004] 2 AC 457
- Cassidy v Daily Mirror Newspapers Ltd [1929] 2 KB 331
- Derbyshire County Council v Times Newspapers Ltd [1993] AC 534
- Douglas v Hello! Ltd (No 3) [2007] UKHL 21, [2008] 1 AC 1
- Jameel v Wall Street Journal Europe Sprl [2006] UKHL 44, [2007] 1 AC 359
- Lachaux v Independent Print Ltd [2019] UKSC 27, [2020] AC 612
Studying tort law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
