A journalist walked into my chambers holding a writ.

He had spent months on a story about public money and private gain. He named names.

Now a Very Important Person wanted him ruined, and he asked me whether honesty in journalism is a luxury only fools can afford.

It is not.

The law arms the honest reporter far better than most reporters know.

What follows is that armoury, laid out plainly, for journalists anywhere.

The one idea beneath every defence

Every defence rests on a single idea. The law does not punish you for being wrong. It punishes you for being reckless, dishonest, or malicious.

Get the facts right, and you are untouchable.

Get some wrong, yet act responsibly on a matter the public needed to know, and the law may still shield you.¹This is the animating principle Lord Nicholls drew out in Reynolds v Times Newspapers Ltd [2001] 2 AC 127 (HL) and Lord Hobhouse’s converse warning in the same case that “there is no interest in being misinformed”: the law protects careful publication, not careless publication. See E Barendt, ‘Balancing freedom of expression and the right to reputation: reflections on Reynolds and reportage’ (2012) 63(1) Northern Ireland Legal Quarterly 59.

That is the whole of it. The rest is detail.

Below are the six shields the law hands you, and the two walls it builds around you without your asking.

The first shield: truth

Truth is a complete defence. Everywhere. If what you published is substantially true, the plaintiff loses — however grand he is, however much the words sting.

You need not prove every comma. You must prove the sting: the substance of the charge.

A wrong date does not sink a true accusation of corruption.²In England and Wales the defence of truth does not fail merely because the truth of every imputation is not proved, provided the imputations not shown to be true do not seriously harm the claimant’s reputation given those that are: Defamation Act 2013, s 2, especially s 2(3). In Malaysia, the equivalent partial-justification rule is the Defamation Act 1957 (Act 286), s 8. In the United States, where the matter is of public concern, the plaintiff must prove falsity, making truth an effectively absolute bar: Philadelphia Newspapers Inc v Hepps 475 US 767 (1986).

So keep your proof. The burden sits on you, which is why the notebook, the recording, and the document are your first line of defence, not your last.

The second shield: honest opinion

Opinion is not fact, and the law protects it. Call a policy disgraceful, a film dreadful, a minister’s conduct a scandal — that is comment, and comment is free.

Four conditions guard it.

The words must read as opinion, not as a smuggled statement of fact.

They must rest on facts that are true or themselves privileged.

They must touch a matter of public interest.

And you must honestly hold the view.³The modern statement of the common-law defence (now “honest opinion”) is Spiller v Joseph [2010] UKSC 53, [2011] 1 AC 852, refining the elements set out by Lord Nicholls NPJ in Tse Wai Chun Paul v Cheng [2001] EMLR 777 (Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal): the comment must be on a matter of public interest, be recognisable as comment, be based on facts that are true or privileged, indicate at least in general terms the facts relied on, and be an opinion an honest person could hold. See earlier Silkin v Beaverbrook Newspapers Ltd [1958] 1 WLR 743 (Diplock J) and Slim v Daily Telegraph Ltd [1968] 2 QB 157 (CA). By statute: Defamation Act 2013, s 3 (England and Wales); Defamation Act 1957, s 9 (Malaysia).

Here malice has one narrow meaning: that you did not believe what you wrote. Believe your opinion honestly, and even ill-will cannot defeat it.⁴The only “malice” that defeats honest opinion is the absence of a genuine belief in the view expressed; spite or ulterior motive, without more, does not: Tse Wai Chun Paul v Cheng (above).

The third shield: privilege

Some occasions the law protects whatever your motive. This is privilege, and it comes in two strengths.

Absolute privilege is a wall. What is said in Parliament, in court, by a witness on oath, cannot be sued on at all — true or false, kind or cruel.⁵Statements in Parliament are protected by art 9 of the Bill of Rights 1689; statements by judges, advocates, parties and witnesses in the course of judicial proceedings enjoy absolute immunity from suit: Munster v Lamb (1883) 11 QBD 588 (CA); Watson v M’Ewan [1905] AC 480 (HL).

Qualified privilege is a shield, not a wall.

It protects a statement made by a person under a duty or interest to a recipient with a matching interest — the report to the regulator, the reference to the employer, the complaint to the authority.⁶Adam v Ward [1917] AC 309 (HL): the maker must have a legal, social or moral duty or interest to communicate, and the recipient a corresponding interest to receive. One thing pierces it: malice. Act from spite, or without honest belief, and the shield falls.⁷Horrocks v Lowe [1975] AC 135, 149–50 (Lord Diplock): qualified privilege is defeated by malice, meaning an improper dominant motive or the absence of honest belief in the truth of what was said.

The fourth shield: responsible journalism

This is the shield the law built for you.

In 1999 the House of Lords faced the reporter’s oldest fear — a story true in substance that you cannot prove to the last fact. It answered with a new privilege.

Publish on a matter of public interest, act responsibly, and the defence may hold even where some facts later prove wrong.⁸Reynolds v Times Newspapers Ltd [2001] 2 AC 127 (HL), especially Lord Nicholls at 205; recalibrated so that the factors are flexible considerations, not hurdles, in Jameel v Wall Street Journal Europe Sprl [2006] UKHL 44, [2007] 1 AC 359, and in Bonnick v Morris [2002] UKPC 31, [2003] 1 AC 300 (responsible journalism is “the point at which a fair balance is held between freedom of expression on matters of public concern and the reputations of individuals”). Applied, and confined, in Flood v Times Newspapers Ltd [2012] UKSC 11, [2012] 2 AC 273.

Lord Nicholls gave not a checklist but a compass.

How serious is the allegation?

How much did the public need it?

What did you do to verify?

How reliable are your sources?

Did you seek the other side’s comment?

How urgent was the story?

And the tone — whether you drew the line between suspicion, allegation, and proven fact.⁹The ten non-exhaustive factors are set out by Lord Nicholls in Reynolds (above) at 205. Jameel (above) directs that they be weighed flexibly and as a whole, not applied as a series of hurdles each capable of defeating the defence.

The question is never whether you were perfect. It is whether, seen in the round, you behaved as a responsible journalist on a matter of public concern.

And this is now the world’s answer, not one country’s.¹⁰The convergence: England and Wales replaced the common-law Reynolds defence with a statutory “publication on matter of public interest” defence — Defamation Act 2013, s 4 (abolishing the common-law defence by s 4(6)); on its operation see Serafin v Malkiewicz [2020] UKSC 23, [2020] 1 WLR 2455 (the statutory factors are not a checklist). Canada: Grant v Torstar Corp 2009 SCC 61, [2009] 3 SCR 640 (a defence of “responsible communication on matters of public interest”). Australia: Lange v Australian Broadcasting Corporation (1997) 189 CLR 520 (extended qualified privilege for political communication, subject to reasonableness), now supplemented by a statutory public-interest defence in the uniform legislation (eg Defamation Act 2005 (NSW), s 29A, inserted 2021). New Zealand: Lange v Atkinson [2000] 3 NZLR 385 (CA). United States: New York Times Co v Sullivan 376 US 254 (1964) — a public official must prove “actual malice”, that is knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth — extended to public figures in Curtis Publishing Co v Butts 388 US 130 (1967). Strasbourg (art 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights): Lingens v Austria (1986) 8 EHRR 407; Bladet Tromsø and Stensaas v Norway (1999) 29 EHRR 125; Pedersen and Baadsgaard v Denmark (2006) 42 EHRR 24. Malaysia, which has no equivalent to s 4, draws on Reynolds where the Defamation Act 1957 is silent: see Syarikat Bekalan Air Selangor Sdn Bhd v Tony Pua Kiam Wee [2015] 6 MLJ 187 (FC).

England folded it into statute. Canada calls it responsible communication. Australia protects political speech published reasonably. America goes furthest, demanding that a public figure prove you knew the story was false, or did not care. Strasbourg weighs the very same factors under the right to free expression. The names differ. The instinct is one: protect the careful, punish the reckless.

The fifth shield: reporting the dispute

Sometimes the news is simply that an allegation was made. Two public figures trade charges, and the public interest lies in the quarrel itself, not in who is right.

Report it fairly and neutrally, without adopting either side, and you need not prove the underlying charge true.¹¹The reportage defence protects the fair, neutral report of the fact that allegations have been made in a dispute of public interest, where the reporter is not required to verify their truth: Roberts v Gable [2007] EWCA Civ 721, [2008] QB 502; Al-Fagih v HH Saudi Research & Marketing (UK) Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 1634, [2002] EMLR 13. Now codified for England and Wales in Defamation Act 2013, s 4(3). But stay neutral. Embellish, take a side, adopt the charge as your own — and the shield is gone.

The sixth shield: correction and amends

The law rewards the honest correction.

If you defamed someone without knowing it, an offer to make amends — a correction, an apology, agreed compensation — can end the matter or greatly soften it.¹²Offer to make amends for unintentional defamation: Defamation Act 1996 (England and Wales), ss 2–4; Defamation Act 1957 (Malaysia), s 7 (unintentional defamation). A prompt and sufficient apology also cuts the damages and helps prove you bore no malice.¹³A timely and adequate apology and correction are relevant to the mitigation of damages and evidence the absence of malice, both at common law and under statute in most common-law jurisdictions. Even truth carries mercy: prove the main charges, and a small unproven detail will not defeat you.¹⁴Defamation Act 2013 (England and Wales), s 2(3); Defamation Act 1957 (Malaysia), s 8.

Distinguish suspicion from fact as you write.

A statement literally accurate, but arranged to leave a false impression, is a half-truth — and a half-truth can still defame.¹⁵A publication is read as a whole, “bane and antidote” taken together: Charleston v News Group Newspapers Ltd [1995] 2 AC 65 (HL). But an accurate statement arranged to convey a false overall meaning may still be actionable; on half-truths in the Malaysian context see the Court of Appeal’s treatment in Seema Elizabeth Isoy v Tan Sri David Chiu Tat-Cheong (Court of Appeal, Malaysia, 2024).

The walls you did not build – and a new gate

Two protections sit outside the defences, and both favour you.

A public authority cannot sue you for libel at all. Criticism of government is the lifeblood of a democracy, and the State may not chill it with writs.¹⁶A governmental body may not maintain an action in defamation, because the threat of civil suits would unduly inhibit criticism of public institutions: Derbyshire County Council v Times Newspapers Ltd [1993] AC 534 (HL); extended to political parties in Goldsmith v Bhoyrul [1998] QB 459.

And a court will almost never gag you before trial. Say that you intend to prove the story true, and the judge will let you publish, leaving damages to the end. Prior restraint is the enemy of a free press.¹⁷The rule against prior restraint: an interim injunction to restrain an alleged libel will be refused where the defendant intends to justify (prove the words true) or raises another arguable defence, the remedy being damages after trial: Bonnard v Perryman [1891] 2 Ch 269 (CA).

Newer gates help too. In several countries the plaintiff must now show that the words caused serious harm, not mere offence.¹⁸In England and Wales a statement is not defamatory unless its publication has caused, or is likely to cause, serious harm to reputation: Defamation Act 2013, s 1, construed in Lachaux v Independent Print Ltd [2019] UKSC 27, [2020] AC 612. Australia introduced a serious-harm element in its 2021 reforms (eg Defamation Act 2005 (NSW), s 10A).

What sinks every shield

Malice. Recklessness. The closed eye.

Invent a fact, and no defence saves you. Shut your eyes to an obvious doubt, and the law treats it as good as lying. Publish to destroy rather than to inform, and every shield above dissolves in your hand.¹⁹Malice — an improper dominant motive or, decisively, the absence of honest belief — destroys qualified privilege and, in their respective ways, the public-interest and honest-opinion defences: Horrocks v Lowe [1975] AC 135. Reckless indifference to truth or falsity is treated as the equivalent of knowledge of falsity: New York Times Co v Sullivan 376 US 254 (1964). Presenting suspicion as established guilt counts against responsible journalism under the Reynolds tone factor.

The law forgives the honest mistake. It does not forgive the dishonest one.

Before you publish

Six habits earn every shield in this charter.

Keep your notes and your recordings.

Put the allegation to the other side, and record the reply.

Separate what you know from what you suspect, and tell the reader which is which.

Publish because the public needs it, never to wound.

Correct quickly the moment you learn you are wrong.

And where the law permits, plead every defence at once — they overlap, and what one misses, another may catch.

Walk with care, and the law will walk with you…

Between silence and slander runs a narrow path.

It bears a name in every free country, though the name changes at each border.

Walk it with care, and the law walks with you.

 

∞§∞

This article is written for a general readership and does not constitute technical or legal advice. Readers with legal questions are encouraged to seek independent legal advice.

The author thanks KN Geetha, TP Vaani, JN Lheela, and Lydia Jaynthi at GK Legal. Our gratitude to —— of Unsplash for the image.

Claude, Anthropic’s AI, smoothed the drafting; Perplexity Pro checked the facts. The argument, the views, and the errors remain the author’s.

@Copyright reserved.

All content on this site, including but not limited to text, compilation, graphics, documents, and layouts, is the intellectual property of GK Ganesan Kasinathan and is protected by local and international copyright laws. Any use shall be invalid unless written permission is obtained by writing to gk@gkganesan.com.