Page 137 - Law and the Media

Law and the Media
newspaper claimed that the conversations showed misconduct on the part of the jockey. The
court held that despite the enormous interest of the public in horseracing and bookmaking,
the newspaper could not publish articles based on the transcripts. It ruled the material should
be handed to the Jockey Club or to the police, but could not be published to the public at
large.

In the Francome case the court was influenced by the fact that the tapes had been obtained
by committing a criminal offence under the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949. If the
conversations had been overheard on a crossed line, they could have been published. There
would have been no breach of confidence. This is because anyone who talks on the telephone
takes the risk that they may be overheard accidentally.

Any member of the media who intends to publish a story obtained in breach of confidence
in reliance on a defence of iniquity should carefully consider the nature of the defence in
advance. The following factors should be considered in order to assess whether the defence
of iniquity can be raised successfully:

1. What is the nature of the misconduct?
Can it be proved conclusively?
Is the source credible?
Is any independent evidence available?
2. Has the misconduct been investigated by anyone else?
What was the result?
Should the finding be disbelieved?
3. Is there a necessity to publish the information to the public at large, beyond publishing a
good story, rather than to a ‘responsible authority’?

6.3.4 Public interest

There is a separate defence of publication in the public interest, even if there is no iniquity.
There are many types of information that, arguably, it is in the public interest to publish, as
opposed to being merely interesting to the public. The definition of public interest in the
Press Complaints Commission Code of Practice includes not only detecting or exposing
crime, but also protecting public health and safety and preventing the public from being
misled by some statement or action by an individual or organization.

In Lion Laboratories Ltd v Evans (1985), an employee gave information to the press about
defects in a breathalyser manufactured by his employer which was used to test the breath of
drivers for alcohol in the police station. The accuracy of the machine was vital because the
liberty of members of the public who were tested by it was affected. There was no iniquity
because no one in the company had lied or was guilty of misconduct or inefficiency.
However, the court allowed the newspaper to publish the information provided by the
employee. It was clearly information that the public ought to know.
100