This is an important decision as a restatement of the Defence of Qualified Privilege by Court of Appeal following decisions in Reynolds v Times Newspapers Ltd and Jameel v Wall Street Journal Europe Sprl.

Flood appealed the earlier decision that the print and website publications of Times Newspaper LTD’s article, naming and detailing Flood as the officer under investigation following allegations that he had accepted bribes in exchange for confidential police information were both protected by the Defence of Qualified Privilege (Reynolds Privilege). Flood argued that the mere fact the allegations were under police investigation should not enable the media to publish the full details of such allegations without fear of being liable for defamation, unless of course, the details of the allegations were in public interest and the journalist took reasonable steps to check the accuracy of the detailed allegations.

It was held that at the time of publication the allegations were no more than unsubstantiated, unchecked accusations from an unknown source. Publishing an article referring to a police statement and disclosing the name of the individual concerned was protected under Reynolds Privilege. However, the Reynolds Privilege did not go so far as to protect the details of allegations of misconduct that remain to be investigated and substantiated, unless of course the details were in the public interest and the journalist had verified that the allegations true.

In Reynolds v Times Newspapers Ltd, Lord Nicholls said in relation the defence of qualified privilege and to whether or not a publication was in the public interest, “Any lingering doubts should be resolved in favour of the publication”. Following the Court of Appeal decision in Flood v Times Newspapers Ltd, it is clear the Right to Privacy (Article 8) and Freedom of Expression (Article 10) now carry equal weight.