Roberts & Anor v Gable & Ors

Qualified privilege may protect publication of allegations made in an ongoing political dispute where the publication objectively reports competing allegations without adopting, endorsing or embellishing them. The public interest may extend beyond party members to the electorate. Verification, source reliability, urgency and seeking comment are not necessarily decisive in a reportage case, because the public interest may lie in the fact that allegations and counter-allegations were made.

The claimants brought libel proceedings over a Searchlight article reporting allegations that one claimant had stolen money from a BNP rally and that both claimants had made threats. The defendants relied on qualified privilege and the reportage doctrine. Justification was not in issue.

The preliminary issue was whether the article reported an ongoing political dispute in a sufficiently disinterested manner to attract privilege under the principles in Reynolds v Times Newspapers Ltd [2001] 2 AC 127.

1. Outcome. The qualified privilege defence was upheld.
2. The article reported conflicting allegations by rival BNP factions without adopting, endorsing or embellishing either account. The defendants were not required to verify the allegations or choose between them.
3. Reportage requires an ongoing dispute, reporting of both sides in a disinterested manner, and clear attribution. The public interest may lie in the fact that allegations were made, rather than their truth or falsity. The reasoning in Al-Fagih v HH Saudi Research and Marketing (UK) Ltd [2002] EMLR 215 applied.
4. The BNP’s presentation of candidates gave the dispute significant public interest. Political commentators may have a social or moral duty to report disputes within political parties fully and impartially.
5. The Reynolds factors remained relevant, but did not fit the reportage context comfortably. Their absence was not fatal in the circumstances.
6. The defendants’ political opposition to the BNP did not prevent privilege. The relevant question was whether the article itself was objective and disinterested.

First-instance determination of a preliminary issue. No prior appellate decision is stated in the judgment.