Last reviewed: Next review due:
What the s.4 defence does
Section 4 of the Defamation Act 2013 creates a statutory defence for publishers who make a defamatory statement on a matter of public interest, even if they cannot prove the statement is true. It replaced the old Reynolds privilege (Reynolds v Times Newspapers [2001] AC 127) which required courts to assess a journalist’s responsible journalism against a non-exhaustive ten-factor checklist.
The s.4 defence is not a licence to publish unverified allegations. It is a protection for journalists who have done their job responsibly — who investigated seriously, sought comment, considered the seriousness of the allegation, and had genuine, reasonable grounds to believe that publication was in the public interest.
The defence fails if a court concludes that the defendant did not actually believe publication was in the public interest, or that no reasonable journalist in their position could have held that belief. Courts also look at whether the defendant took reasonable steps: whether they sought comment from the claimant, and whether their editorial process was consistent with their claimed public interest belief.
The two-part test (s.4(1))
The statement was, or formed part of, a statement on a matter of public interest.
This is an objective test. A wide range of topics can qualify: political conduct, public body behaviour, serious corporate wrongdoing, public health, safety, or significant matters of public concern. Celebrity gossip or private conduct with no public dimension usually will not.
The defendant reasonably believed that publishing the statement was in the public interest.
This is primarily a subjective test (did you actually believe it?) with an objective check (was that belief reasonable?). Courts look at what you knew, what you verified, what steps you took, and whether your belief was consistent with your conduct. If you took shortcuts, failed to seek comment, or misread available information, you may not satisfy this limb.
Red flags
- You cannot articulate a clear public interest that goes beyond reader interest or entertainment value.
- You have made no contemporaneous record of your public interest reasoning before publication.
- You have not sought comment from the claimant or a person who can speak on their behalf.
- The allegation is serious (criminal conduct, professional misconduct) and you have not verified it with multiple independent sources.
- You relied on a single source who had obvious motivation to damage the claimant.
- You rushed publication under competitive pressure without completing reasonable verification steps.
- The editorial file contains no record of the verification steps taken or the decision to publish.
- The story mixes genuine public interest material with private information that adds little to the public interest argument.
Pre-publication public interest checklist
- Identified and recorded the specific public interest served by publication (e.g. exposing wrongdoing, informing public debate, holding power to account).
- Considered the seriousness of the allegations and whether the verification steps taken are proportionate.
- Assessed the reliability and potential bias of each source.
- Checked whether there was any urgency requiring earlier publication than ideal verification would allow.
- Sent a right-of-reply request to the claimant (or subject) with reasonable time to respond.
- Documented the response (or non-response) and how it was considered editorially.
- Confirmed the editorial decision and the public interest reasoning has been recorded in the editorial file.
- Considered whether any part of the publication includes material beyond what is needed to serve the public interest.
- Reviewed relevant IPSO Public Interest exception guidance to ensure editorial conduct is consistent with it.
- If the story has been updated post-publication, confirmed that the public interest reasoning still supports the updated version.
Document your public interest reasoning now
Use the Public Interest Test Builder to create a structured, timestamped record of your public interest analysis in the format that IPSO and courts expect. Use the Defamation Risk Checklist to assess overall pre-publication defamation exposure.
Common mistakes
- Confusing public curiosity with public interest. Readers wanting to know something does not make it a matter of public interest in law.
- Not seeking comment from the claimant before publication. Failure to put allegations to a subject is treated seriously by courts and regulators.
- Failing to make contemporaneous notes of the public interest reasoning. Notes made after the claim arrives look like retrospective rationalisation.
- Not distinguishing between what is strictly necessary for the public interest story and what is included for colour or commercial reasons.
- Assuming that because a similar story appeared elsewhere, the public interest is self-evident and does not need documenting.
- Applying Reynolds factors mechanically without understanding that s.4 requires a holistic assessment of whether publication was responsible.
- Conflating the IPSO Public Interest exception with the legal s.4 defence — they operate on related but different bases.
Related guides
Related guides
Primary sources
- Defamation Act 2013, s.4 (publication on matter of public interest)— legislation.gov.uk
- Reynolds v Times Newspapers Ltd [2001] 2 AC 127— BAILII
- Serafin v Malkiewicz [2020] UKSC 23— BAILII
- Doyle v Smith [2018] EWHC 2935 (QB)— BAILII
- IPSO Editors' Code — public interest— IPSO
- Ministry of Justice — Defamation Act 2013 explanatory notes— legislation.gov.uk