Fighting off the lawyers
The person or company who is the subject of a story can resort to the law. Before publication, the plaintiff can approach a judge to take out an injunction to stop the story or the paper even being published – as tried by Eldrick Tont 'Tiger' Woods who tried to stop news of his affair being published. Various court cases in the past decade have led to claims of a de facto 'privacy law' being developed in Britain. Such laws in France have suppressed stories involving politicians and presidents for decadees.
The 'nuclear weapon' in the lawyer's armoury is the controversial 'super injunction' where the paper is not even allowed to admit an injunction has been taken out or make any reference to it. Among those who have used this tactic to try to gag journalists are:
- golfer Tiger Woods;
- footballer Ryan Giggs; and
- law firm Carter-Ruck on behalf of oil-trading firm Trafigura against the Guardian.
The libel laws
Once a story has been published, the unhappy subject can seek compensation for damages to their reputation under the libel laws. It is up to the journalist to prove the story is true or try to develop a defence that there was a strong public interest:
- Under UK libel laws, the reporter's main defence is to prove the story is true in a court of law.
- Even if the paper wins the case, if the judge does not award full legal expenses, the costs can be crippling.
- Sometimes, a magazine or paper will settle the case before it reaches court – even if it knows the story to be true – because of the high level of risk in court cases and the crippling cost of damages.
- In some cases, people will sue to supress a story, even though it is true. A classic example of this was government minister Jonathan Aitken promising to use the 'sword of truth' and suing the Guardian for libel over his dealings with Saudi arms traders. He was found out and was sent to prison after it was proved he had lied repeatedly.
The cost of losing a case can threaten the viability of a publication:
- The Christmas 1986 Private Eye cost £1 instead of 45p to pay off the costs of losing a libel case against Robert Maxwell – estimated at £255,000 in damages and legal fees. Only after his death in 1991 did the extent of Maxwell's fraud emerge – £400m was missing from his companies' pension funds. Maxwell had celebrated winning the case by publishing a one-off spoof, Not Private Eye.
- In 1993, New Statesman published 'The curious case of John Major's "mistress"'. The Tory prime minister sued and settled for £1,001 without the magazine admitting liability. However, it had to pay for settlements made by its printers, distributor and newsagents – £200,000. It raised the money from readers. In 2002, MP Edwina Curry revealed she had an affair with Major in 1984-88.
- In 2003, the listed stockbroker Collins Stewart Tullett claimed damages against the Financial Times for a 15% fall in its share price – estimated at £128m. The broker accused the FT of 'muck-raking'. The FT settled after a two-year battle when Collins Stewart accepted £300,000 in damages and an apology printed on the paper's 'second front'. The FT had to pay the broking firm's legal costs of £2.2m as well as its own costs of £1.8m. The total legal bill was covered by the FT's insurance policy.
The next page explores reporters who die fighting to get through the truth ...
