- "there is ... information the public interest of which is real and unmistakeable. In relation to information of that character it makes sense to speak of the newspapers having a "duty" to publish. They and their reporters should, of course, take such steps as are practicable to find the truth of what is reported. Fairness to those whose names appear in the newspapers may require, if it is practicable, an opportunity to comment being given to them and/or an opportunity to have a response published by the newspaper. These are all circumstances the weight of which in assessing whether a report should be protected by qualified privilege will vary from case to case."
"It should now be entirely clear that the Reynolds Defence is a "different jurisprudential creature" from the law of privilege, although it is a natural development of that law. It springs from the general obligation of the press, media and other publishers to communicate important information upon matters of general public interest and the general right of the public to receive such information. It is not helpful to analyse the particular case in terms of a specific duty and a specific right to know. That can, as experience since Reynolds has shown, very easily lead to a narrow and rigid approach which defeats its object. In truth, it is a defence of publication in the public interest."
"This does not mean a free for all to publish without being damned. The public only have a right to be told if two conditions are fulfilled. First, there must be a real public interest in communicating and receiving the information ...Secondly, the publisher must have taken the care that a responsible publisher would take to verify the information published. The actual steps taken will vary with the nature and sources of the information. But one would normally expect that the source or sources were ones which the publisher had good reason to think were reliable, that the publisher himself believed the information to be true and that he had done what he could to check it."
Is there a contrast with the ECHR, notably in LINDON (AND OTHERS) v FRANCE where