e situation will be one where the person to whom it relates can reasonably expect his privacy to be respected.”

If for any reason, a journalist decides to publish a photograph of Mr. Campbell, he would need to be able to prove that it was published with the pursuer’s consent, or was already in public domain or that there is a public interest reason in publishing it.

Another source, claims that Mr. Campbell was apparently known to be very friendly with a convicted sex offender. As written above, this claim needs to be verified by the journalist before publishing it. Assuming that this is true, a journalist might publish it as a matter of public interest. In the Editor’s Code of Practice of IPSO, public interest includes “raising or contributing to a matter of public debate, including serious cases of impropriety, unethical conduct or incompetence concerning the public. The regulator will consider the extent to which material is already in the public domain or will become so and editors invoking the public interest will need to demonstrate that they reasonably believed publication – or journalistic activity taken with a view to publication – would both serve, and be proportionate to, the public interest and explain how they reached that decision at the time.” (IPSO, 2018)

Public interest was a new defence introduced with the Defamation Act 2013 to substitute the Reynolds defence. It protects the media, which publishes issues of public interest in a responsible way even when what has been said turns out to be false. If the media was required to be able to prove, to court, that every allegation is true before publishing it, that would mean that important true stories would be suppressed from being published at all. Also, the media will only be protected if they have reported the allegations and conducted their research in a responsible way. Therefore checking the sources’ background and proofs are a must to protect yourself as a journalist and your newspaper credibility. In order to publish an impartial and balanced story, Mr. Jock Campbell side needs to be portrayed at least in general terms. The author of the news story cannot be disadvantaged if the pursuer refuses to give his side of the story. Likewise, paying a source for information might be seen by a court as bias thus not reliable, which means that a public interest defence would not stand a chance.

For instance in Bonnick v Morris, a story about a Jamaican company, JCTC, making business with another company, Prolacto was published in a newspaper. The pursuer used to be employed by JCTC but left just after the contracts were made with the other company. The article reported that the contracts were very advantageous to Prolacto and that Bonnick left the company after making the second contract. The pursuer sued for defamation because the article implied that he acted improperly in arranging the contracts, and that was the reason why he had to leave. The newspaper used public interest as a defence and argued that they had approached JCTC for comments, but they gave no statement. Additionally, the pursuer was approached as well, and he explained that there was nothing suspicious about the contracts and that they had nothing to do with him leaving the Jamaican company. The court found that the news story was defamatory, however, it was a matter of public interest and the newspaper acted responsibly in gathering the information.

Finally, Rosie Parker, who used to work at the coffee shop, says Campbell would spy on his female neighbours through his office window, but she has never reported this to the police. Publishing this information might result in Contempt of Court, which means prejudicing Mr. Campbell right to a fair trial and Fifi’s family right to justice. Contempt of Court was introduced to protect the system of justice because in a criminal case, the jury should reach a verdict solemnly based on the evidence which was heard in court. A n