Newspaper naming (shaming) of someone not convicted/charged, merely related.

[FrancesP]

Is a newspaper allowed to name, in a derogatory fashion someone who was merely a witness in a case of benefit fraud - even though they were only related, a witness and not charged in the case? The name was used in an article in a salacious manner, naming the person, his works and 'famous' music band, with the sole objective surely to make the story more sensational.

Thank you.

[Openlaw15]

Re: Newspaper naming (shaming) of someone not convicted/charged, merely related.

Is a newspaper allowed to name, in a derogatory fashion someone who was merely a witness in a case of benefit fraud - even though they were only related, a witness and not charged in the case? The name was used in an article in a salacious manner, naming the person, his works and 'famous' music band, with the sole objective surely to make the story more sensational.

Thank you.

It is potentially libel if the things being said by the newspaper are untrue or defamatory. However, whilst the first person is permitted a right to a private life under the Human Rights Act, the newspaper has the right to report news of public interest and the law grants them this via the freedom of expression under the Human Rights Act. So, yes the newspaper has the right to report stories of public interest but if the stories are potentially libelous that's obviously different.

[R0b]

Re: Newspaper naming (shaming) of someone not convicted/charged, merely related.

Don't think public interest defence extends to a person who is not connected to the fraud but is merely a witness to the case and has not committed any wrongdoing.
So there may be a case but it depends what was actually said in the article too.

[Openlaw15]

Re: Newspaper naming (shaming) of someone not convicted/charged, merely related.

Don't think public interest defence extends to a person who is not connected to the fraud but is merely a witness to the case and has not committed any wrongdoing.
So there may be a case but it depends what was actually said in the article too.

Initially the article's terms are pertinent for establishing whether it is libelous. The onus is on the person to prove the newspaper's article is libelous. However, if the facts were reported by another third party to the newspaper its defence will be that they're just reporting facts what were fed to it. It's like the media and Hillsborough and the media and the sexed up weapons of mass destruction, they just reported facts that were fed to it.