Right of Reply for UK Journalists: Process, Timing & Templates

What is the right of reply and why does it matter legally?

The “right of reply” is the professional practice of seeking the comment, denial, or explanation of the subject of a critical or potentially damaging story before publication. It is not a legal right in the sense that a subject can prevent you publishing — but the process of offering it, documenting it, and publishing the response where appropriate is central to both your ethical obligations and your legal defences.

NUJ Code of Conduct Clause 3 requires members to “do their utmost to correct harmful inaccuracies” — a duty that extends to accuracy at the pre-publication stage. IPSO Editors’ Code Clause 1 requires that the press does not publish inaccurate, misleading, or distorted information and must take care not to do so. Clause 2 (Privacy) also recognises the public interest in investigative journalism.

Legally, the right of reply is an important component of the publication on a matter of public interest defence under s.4 Defamation Act 2013. When a court assesses whether you believed publication was in the public interest and behaved responsibly in the circumstances, it will look at whether you sought and published the subject’s response. This test echoes the twelve “Reynolds factors” from the pre-2013 common law defence.

A well-documented right of reply also demonstrates good faith to IPSO and to any potential claimant’s solicitor at the pre-action protocol stage. “Our journalist sought comment from your client on [date] by [means]; no response was received” is a powerful opening line in a legal response.

How does the BBC handle a right of reply?

The BBC’s Editorial Guidelines (Section 6: Fairness) set out the practice in detail. They are the BBC’s own editorial policy for its output, not a statute. Principle 6.2.3 states that when output contains allegations of wrongdoing, iniquity or incompetence, or lays out a strong and damaging critique of an identifiable individual or organisation, “those criticised should normally have a right of reply, unless there is an editorial justification to proceed without it.”

The detailed guidelines (6.4.43–6.4.46) add practical steps that are a useful benchmark for any newsroom:

• ›Record every request for a response. The BBC requires a record that includes the dates, times, the name of the person approached and the key elements of the exchange.
• ›Tell the subject enough to respond. They should normally be given a description of the allegations in sufficient detail to enable an informed response (there is no need to provide material evidence), the nature, format and content of the output, when and where it will first be published if known, and an appropriate and timely opportunity to respond.
• ›Reflect the response fairly. Any relevant parts of the response should be reflected fairly and accurately, and should normally be published within or alongside the material containing the allegations.
• ›Escalate before running a serious allegation with no reply. A proposal to broadcast a serious allegation without offering an opportunity to reply must be referred to a senior editorial figure and to the Director Editorial Policy and Standards, who consider whether broadcasting the allegation is justified by the public interest and whether there are strong reasons for believing it to be true.

The BBC guidelines also note that the response to a right of reply can help achieve accuracy in the output, as well as fairness. For the broadcast regulator’s rules, see our guide to the Ofcom Broadcasting Code.

When the right of reply is most important

• ›Any story making a factual allegation capable of lowering a person's reputation in the eyes of right-thinking members of society.
• ›Stories based on confidential or leaked information that the subject may be able to refute or contextualise.
• ›Investigations into private companies, public bodies, or institutions where your information came from a single source.
• ›Stories involving sensitive personal allegations — financial impropriety, sexual misconduct, criminal conduct.
• ›Any piece that you intend to rely on the s.4 public interest defence if challenged.
• ›Stories where the subject is a private individual rather than a public figure — the bar for "responsible journalism" is higher.

Red flags: when your right of reply process may be inadequate

• ●You sent a single email to a general contact address and published when there was no reply within a few hours.
• ●You gave a deadline shorter than reasonably necessary for the subject to take legal advice before responding.
• ●The email setting out the specific allegations was too vague — the subject cannot address what they don't know they're being asked about.
• ●You only contacted a PR spokesman and never attempted to reach the named individual directly.
• ●You failed to include specific allegations — only a general question — leaving the subject unable to give an informed response.
• ●You published without recording your attempts, so you cannot prove you made them.
• ●You received a substantive denial and published without addressing it in the story.

Right of reply process checklist

• Identify all individuals and organisations that are the subject of a material allegation in your story.
• Draft a right of reply letter that sets out each specific allegation you intend to publish, clearly and accurately.
• State your intended publication date and give a realistic deadline for response — at least 24–48 hours for breaking news, 5 working days for planned investigations.
• Send by email and, where possible, follow up by telephone — document the call time and outcome.
• Send to the correct person: ideally the named individual, then their PR representative, then their solicitor if they have one on record.
• Keep a timestamped record of every attempt: email send receipts, read receipts, call logs.
• If there is no response by the deadline, make at least one further attempt and record it.
• Publish the substance of any denial or response fairly in the article — do not bury it.
• If the subject responds with new facts, verify them before publication. Do not publish denials you know to be false.
• Keep the full exchange in your editorial file permanently — it may be needed years later in litigation.
• Where a response is received post-publication, assess whether it merits a follow-up article or a correction.

Common right of reply mistakes

• ⚠Treating the right of reply as a box-ticking formality rather than a genuine opportunity for the subject to respond.
• ⚠Being too vague in the right of reply letter — the subject must know what specific allegations they are being asked to address.
• ⚠Giving an unreasonably short deadline and then citing non-response as evidence of guilt.
• ⚠Publishing a denial without addressing it — simply noting "Mr X denied the allegations" without any engagement with their substance.
• ⚠Failing to keep records that prove you made the attempt — you may need them years later.
• ⚠Not updating the right of reply when the story changes significantly between the initial approach and publication.

Related guides

Primary sources

• Defamation Act 2013, s.4 — public interest defence
• IPSO Editors' Code of Practice — Clause 1 (Accuracy)
• NUJ Code of Conduct
• IMPRESS Standards Code
• BBC Editorial Guidelines — Section 6: Fairness, principle 6.2.3 (right of reply)
• BBC Editorial Guidelines — Section 6: Fairness, guidelines 6.4.43–6.4.46 (right of reply)
• Reynolds v Times Newspapers Ltd [2001] 2 AC 127 — original "responsible journalism" factors

Frequently asked questions