---

An English libel case involving Romanian royalty shows the media cannot relax in the reassuring glow of recently bolstered reportage and “public interest” privilege defences.

The case concerns an article headed “Scandal in Romania as Princess Margarita’s husband is branded an impostor”, published in Royalty Monthly, a magazine about the royal houses of Europe which has a circulation of 6,000 in UK.

The article ventured into a public spat about the royal title of Prince Radu, husband to the daughter of the former King of Romania, which he said was given to him under a signed deed by the head of the Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen family at the King’s suggestion.

It included allegations that Prince Radu used a bogus title to gain access to various public roles, including involvement with NATO, and for personal gain.

It also aired accusations that the Prince worked for dictator Ceaucescu’s secret police in the Cold War. Comment from the Prince was not sought.

The report was partly based on comments made by detractors at a press conference held in Bucharest but it also included defamatory material from other sources.

At a preliminary High Court hearing last month [Nov 07], the defence argued that the article reported fairly and neutrally a public controversy as to the genuineness or otherwise of a princely title. They argued the article was protected by reportage privilege, in accordance with a recent Court of Appeal case which gave a publisher considerable leeway to air the defamatory details of a spat raging among British National Party members in the London area.

The defence also claimed the article had “public interest” qualified privilege in accordance with the recent liberal Court of Appeal ruling in Charman v Orion, which upheld as “responsible journalism” a defamatory book about a police officer.

But despite demonstrating these latest strands of case law favourable to publishers, they failed to persuade Mr Justice Eady that the article satisfied the required standards.

On reportage, Eady J said: “It is important to scrutinise the particular circumstances of each case to make sure that it is indeed an example of true reportage.”

He accepted a reportage defence is not lost simply because a journalist takes “perceptible pleasure” in reporting a controversy, but said it is lost if a journalist adopts what has been alleged or fails to report the story in a “fair, disinterested, neutral way”.

The fact that the article appeared to be a mixture of third party allegations, the author’s own assertions, and comment, enabled the Prince’s counsel to argue persuasively that it was a “mélange”, not reportage!

The judge noted that the magazine had not sought comment from Prince Radu or anyone from his side of the dispute – for example, a representative who had been despatched in haste to the press conference for the purpose of refuting the allegations.

It also omitted positive comments in favour of the Prince, made by the then Prime Minister of Romania, Mr Nastase.

The magazine’s editor said he considered the article as “part one” of the coverage, and he would have published the Prince’s response as a follow up if it were forthcoming later.

Eady J decided “balance was missing”.

As to “public interest” privilege of the type outlined in the leading cases of Reynolds and Charman, he went on to consider Lord Nicholls’ ten non-exhaustive matters to be taken into account in assessing “responsible journalism”.

He concluded: “The claimant’s reputation was attacked on several fronts without giving him a chance to respond. In those circumstances, there is no reason why the Defendants should be accorded a privilege, such as to excuse them from having to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that the defamatory allegations were substantially true.”

---

To contact Tony Jaffa or Nigel Hanson telephone 0800 0731 411 or e-mail [email protected] or [email protected]

---