View source for Qualified privilege

{{Short description|Legal defence to defamation}}
{{refimprove|date=November 2024}}
The defence of '''qualified privilege''' permits a person in a position of [[authority]] or [[Trust (social sciences)|trust]] to make statements or relay or report statements that would be considered [[slander and libel]] if made by anyone else.
==New Zealand and Canada==
In [[New Zealand]] and [[Ontario]], for instance, cases of [[political libel]] are inhibited by permitting open discussion of an allegation or rumor, if conducted responsibly and with due care for the [[privacy]] of the person whose reputation would be affected. This privilege generally does not extend to repetition of discredited statements, [[Malice (law)|malice]], or comments made out of process or out of order in the organization or institution in which the position of authority is held.
==United Kingdom==
The defence of qualified privilege became very important in the UK, especially after a case involving allegations made by the ''Sunday Times'' against the Irish Taoiseach [[Albert Reynolds]].<ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.rte.ie/news/1999/1028/reynolds.html |title=Sunday Times loses latest stage of Reynolds libel battle |publisher=RTÉ News |date=28 October 1999 |access-date=28 December 2010 |archive-date=20 October 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121020030606/http://www.rte.ie/news/1999/1028/reynolds.html |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=Reynolds defense |via=OPUK |url=http://uk.openingpolitics.org/index.php?title=Reynolds_defense |access-date=29 May 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080205121138/http://uk.openingpolitics.org/index.php?title=Reynolds_defense |archive-date=5 February 2008 |url-status=dead}}</ref> During that case the judge outlined a ten-point test of 'responsible journalism'. If reporters and editors followed these points, the judge said, they would enjoy a degree of protection from libel action, even if they could not prove factual allegations. The defence was abolished in England and Wales by the [[Defamation Act 2013]], which replaced it with the statutory defences of ''publication on a matter of public interest'' and ''peer-reviewed statements in a scientific or academic journal''.
To qualify for this defense, a report is required to be one of a public meeting or press conference that is:
* fair,
* accurate,
* published without [[Malice (law)|malice]],
* subject to the right of reply in the form of a letter that gives explanation or contradiction.
It need not be contemporaneous (depending on publication), where it has to be for [[absolute privilege]].
==References==
{{reflist}}
[[Category:Tort law]]
[[Category:Defamation]]
[[Category:Journalism]]
{{law-term-stub}}