Law Report: Authority could not claim absolute privilege
A LOCAL authority could not claim absolute privilege in an action for defamation brought by an employee in respect of information about him sent by the authority to the Department of Health for inclusion in its index of persons unsuitable for work with children.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal of the London Borough of Newham against the decision of Mr Justice Popplewell on a preliminary issue in defamation proceedings brought against it by the respondent.
The respondent, S, had been employed by the authority as a social worker since 1993, and until October 1995 had worked with children up to the age of 11. In May 1995 the authority initiated inquiries into incidents involving the manner in which S had dealt with a particular child. The inquiries resulted in a decision critical of S.
In accordance with guidelines issued by the Department of Health the authority sent a letter to the department, and S sought damages for defamation based on the contents of the letter. The authority contended that the letter was subject to absolute privilege, but the judge had decided, as a preliminary issue, that that defence was not open to it.
Geoffrey Shaw QC and Harvey Starte (Barlow Lyde & Gilbert) for S; Simeon Thrower and Rashpal Mondair (Sahota) for the authority.
Lord Woolf MR said that at the heart of the appeal was a conflict between the right of an individual to bring an action for defamation and the public interest in protecting children from conduct which could adversely affect their well-being or put them at risk.
The authority had a responsibility to provide information to the department, which maintained an index of the details of persons engaged in child-care work who had convictions, had been dismissed, or whose conduct made them unsuitable for work with children.
The importance of safeguarding children from harm of the type against which the index was designed to give protection could not be exaggerated, but it was difficult to accept that a local authority would be deterred from providing appropriate information to the department by the threat of litigation.
Although, as the present case illustrated, there would be employees who would seek to bring defamation proceedings, the occasions on which they would have any prospect of success would be rare. In such proceedings the defence of qualified privilege would be available, requiring a plaintiff to establish malice on the part of the body responsible for publication. Where a plaintiff clearly had no prospect of success, the court could be expected to be robust and to dismiss the action.
In the present case there was a public interest in that the index should be available to provide information for safeguarding the welfare of children, but, in determining whether it was necessary and appropriate to extend immunity from suit to the authority, the advantage of protecting the integrity of the index had to be weighed against the disadvantage that would cause to S.
There was a substantial public interest in S's being able to vindicate his position. In R v Lord Chancellor, ex p Witham  2 All ER 779, a citizen's access to the court had been described as a common law constitutional right which could only be abrogated by specific statutory provision.
It was obvious that having his or her name placed on the index had serious repercussions for the individual concerned. If the individual's conduct justified inclusion in the index, then the existence of the index meant that his interests must give way to those of the children the index was designed to protect.
If the allegations against S were, as he alleged, not only untrue but made maliciously, then justice required that he should be able to establish his innocence. The practical consequence of his name being on the index was that he would not be able to work in his chosen occupation.
The infringement of the public interest in S having access to the courts was greater than the necessity to protect the index from the insignificant risk of impairment of its effectivness by an action for defamation.
- 1 BBC told new political editor must be 'impartial' with Nick Robinson reportedly stepping down
- 2 Number of young homeless people in Britain is 'more than three times the official figures'
- 3 Humans of New York image of crying gay teen receives best response yet from Ellen DeGeneres
- 4 The map showing the most dangerous tourist destinations in Europe, according to the Foreign Office
- 5 Swedish minister gives strongest case yet on why EU should stop turning away asylum seekers
More Britons believe that multiculturalism makes the country worse - not better, says poll
Nathan Collier: Montana man inspired by same-sex marriage ruling requests right to wed two wives
Greece crisis: IMF was pushed around by Angela Merkel and Nicholas Sarkozy – and now it is being humiliated
Forget little green men – aliens will look like humans, says Cambridge University evolution expert
Girl, 7, stares down hate preacher at Ohio festival with pro-LGBT rainbow flag gesture
Osborne to cap family benefits at £23,000 – announced ahead of his post-election Budget
£7 - £10 per hour: Recruitment Genius: This care provider is looking for Home ...
£30000 - £35000 per annum: Recruitment Genius: One of the UK's leading web des...
£27000 - £35000 per annum: Recruitment Genius: A growing, successful, friendly...
£16000 - £25000 per annum: Recruitment Genius: This family owned, independent ...