Freedom of the Press in UK Law

These principles have evolved because of the value the Court has placed upon freedom of speech and I think also upon the freedom of the Press, when balancing it against the reputation of a single individual who, if wrong, can be compensated in damages.

What does, however, emerge clearly from the opinions are four propositions. First, neither article has as such precedence over the other. Secondly, where the values under the two articles are in conflict, an intense focus on the comparative importance of the specific rights being claimed in the individual case is necessary. Thirdly, the justifications for interfering with or restricting each right must be taken into account. For convenience I will call this the ultimate balancing test.

And publication may cause needless pain, distress and damage to individuals or harm to other aspects of the public interest. But a freedom which is restricted to what judges think to be responsible or in the public interest is no freedom. Freedom means the right to publish things which government and judges, however well motivated, think should not be published. It means the right to say things which "right-thinking people" regard as dangerous or irresponsible.

It is through the mass media that most people today obtain their information on political matters. Without freedom of expression by the media, freedom of expression would be a hollow concept. The interest of a democratic society in ensuring a free press weighs heavily in the balance in deciding whether any curtailment of this freedom bears a reasonable relationship to the purpose of the curtailment.

Quite apart from any question of public interest in the freedom of the press, there is a much wider principle which covers it, and that is this. The point is that Bonnard v Perryman, apart from its reference to freedom of speech, is based on the fact that the courts should not step in to defend a cause of action in defamation if they think that this is a case in which the plea of justification might, not would, succeed.

The sole question is whether the interests of the child should be allowed to prevail over the freedom of the Press. In this situation the welfare of the child is not the paramount consideration. There is a balancing exercise where:

The freedom of the press is extolled as one of the great bulwarks of liberty. It does not mean that the press is free to ruin a reputation or to break a confidence, or to pollute the course of justice or to do anything that is unlawful. No restraint should be placed on the press as to what they should publish. It means that the press is to be free from what Blackstone calls "previous restraint" or what our friends in the United States—co-heirs with us of Blackstone—call "prior restraint".