Skip to main content

Media Law Risk Pack

Seven tools and guides for managing legal risk before publication — from defamation assessment and public interest testing to corrections, right of reply, and story risk registers.

Last reviewed: Next review due:

Who this pack is for

This pack is for journalists and editors who want to systematise their pre-publication legal risk assessment. It is particularly relevant for investigative reporters working on stories that make serious allegations about individuals or organisations, features editors assessing stories that could give rise to defamation claims, and news editors who want a structured approach to corrections and right-of-reply compliance.

The pack covers the core areas of media law risk that arise most frequently in UK newsrooms: defamation under the Defamation Act 2013, the public interest defence, right of reply obligations under IPSO Editors’ Code, corrections compliance, and pre-publication story risk logging. None of these tools replace formal legal advice — but they help you ask the right questions and document your reasoning before publication.

What’s included

Five tools and two guides — click any card to open it directly.

Defamation Risk Checklist

Assess the defamation risk of a story before publication: whether the statement is defamatory, which defences apply, and what steps reduce risk.

Public Interest Test Builder

Work through the two-limb public interest test under s.4 Defamation Act 2013 and document your reasoning before publication.

Right of Reply Generator

Generate a formal, IPSO-compliant right-of-reply letter with the specific allegation, deadline, and your contact details.

Corrections Generator

Produce an IPSO-compliant correction notice for a published error, with the correct prominence and wording.

Story Risk Register

Log and assess the legal and editorial risks of a story in development, with a structured risk matrix for pre-publication review.

Guide: Defamation Risk Checklist

A detailed guide to the Defamation Act 2013, the main defences, and how to assess defamation risk before publication.

Guide: Public Interest Defence

How the public interest defence under s.4 Defamation Act 2013 works in practice, with case law examples.

How to use this pack

  1. 1

    Open a Story Risk Register at the start of any high-risk investigation

    As soon as you begin work on a story that makes serious allegations, open a Story Risk Register entry. Log the allegations, the evidence you have, the legal risks, and the steps needed before publication. Update it as the story develops. This creates a documented record of your editorial decision-making if the story is subsequently challenged.

  2. 2

    Run the Defamation Risk Checklist before writing

    Before drafting your story, use the Defamation Risk Checklist to identify which statements carry defamation risk and which defences may be available. This shapes how you write — whether to frame statements as opinion, whether to seek corroboration, and whether you need to give the subject a more specific right of reply.

  3. 3

    Build your public interest case

    For any story that relies on the public interest defence, use the Public Interest Test Builder to document your reasoning. Record why the story is on a matter of public interest, and why you reasonably believed publishing was in the public interest. Save or print the output and attach it to your editorial file.

  4. 4

    Send a right of reply to every story subject

    Use the Right of Reply Generator to send a formal, specific right-of-reply letter to each named subject before publication. Give reasonable time to respond. Note any response (or non-response) in your editorial file. For complex stories with multiple subjects, track each right of reply separately.

  5. 5

    Handle post-publication errors promptly

    If an error is identified after publication, use the Corrections Generator to produce an IPSO-compliant correction with appropriate prominence. Do not delay. The longer an error stays uncorrected, the more it compounds the reputational harm and the harder an IPSO complaint becomes to defend.

Red flags — legal risks that require immediate attention

  • You have received a pre-action protocol letter before claim — do not respond without legal advice; you typically have 14 days to respond under the IPSO protocol or the pre-action defamation protocol.
  • The story makes a serious factual allegation about a named individual for which you have a single-source without documentary corroboration — the truth defence requires you to prove substantial truth; one source may not be enough.
  • The subject of the story is a private individual rather than a public figure — private individuals attract stronger privacy protection and a lower threshold for a successful misuse of private information claim.
  • The story involves information that appears to have been obtained by hacking, blagging, or interception — using such information may expose you and your publication to criminal liability regardless of the news value.
  • You have not opened a Story Risk Register and documented your pre-publication steps — if the story is subsequently challenged, your contemporaneous notes are your primary defence.
  • The claimant's lawyers are demanding you identify sources as part of pre-action disclosure — this is resisted by seeking a Norwich Pharmacal order, which requires a court application; get legal help immediately.
  • The story involves active criminal proceedings — any allegation about a named defendant during the active period may create contempt risk in addition to defamation risk.

Primary sources

Common mistakes

  • Relying on a single corroborating source. The truth defence under s.2 Defamation Act 2013 requires you to prove the statement is substantially true. A single source who later recants or cannot be named may not be sufficient.
  • Framing opinion as fact. The honest opinion defence (s.3) requires the statement to be recognisable as opinion, based on a true or privileged fact. Disguising a serious factual allegation as “it seems to me that” does not convert it into protected opinion.
  • Not keeping contemporaneous notes. If a defamation claim is brought, your editorial notes — what you knew, when you knew it, what steps you took — are your primary evidence. Notes made after the event are far less valuable.
  • Publishing after a pre-action letter without legal input. A letter before claim is not a court order — you can publish — but you need to understand the legal position before making that decision. At minimum, forward the letter to your publication's legal counsel or the NUJ.
  • Treating a public figure's private life as fair game. Being a public figure reduces — but does not eliminate — privacy protection. Their public role is legitimately reportable; their private medical, family, and personal life retains Article 8 protection unless directly relevant to a genuine public interest story.

Frequently asked questions

What are the main defences to a defamation claim in England and Wales?
The Defamation Act 2013 provides four main defences: Truth (s.2) — the statement is substantially true; Honest Opinion (s.3) — the statement is an opinion, based on a fact that was true or privileged, and a person could honestly hold that opinion; Publication on a Matter of Public Interest (s.4) — the statement was on a matter of public interest and you reasonably believed publishing was in the public interest; and Privilege (s.7) — qualified or absolute privilege, including fair and accurate reports of court proceedings and public meetings. The Defamation Risk Checklist in this pack assesses which defences may be available for your specific story.
When do I need to send a right of reply?
A right of reply is required under IPSO Editors' Code Clause 1 (Accuracy) when you are about to publish a significant factual claim about an individual or organisation. "Significant" means a claim that could damage reputation, cause embarrassment, or that the subject would wish to dispute. Send the specific allegation (not a vague summary), give a reasonable deadline (24–72 hours is standard, depending on your publication timeline), and keep all correspondence. If the subject does not respond, note this in your article.
What does "public interest" mean under the Defamation Act 2013?
Section 4 of the Defamation Act 2013 protects publication of statements on "a matter of public interest" where the defendant reasonably believed publishing was in the public interest. The Public Interest Test Builder in this pack takes you through the two-limb test: (1) was the content on a matter of public interest? and (2) did you reasonably believe publishing was in the public interest? Courts consider whether you followed responsible journalism practices: giving the subject an opportunity to comment, seeking corroboration, seeking legal advice, and considering the urgency and public benefit of disclosure.
What is a SLAPP and how do I respond to one?
A Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP) is a legal action — typically a defamation or privacy claim — brought with the primary purpose of silencing or deterring journalism, rather than to vindicate a genuine legal right. Signs include: very high damages claims, aggressive pre-action threats, short response deadlines, and claims by wealthy claimants against individual journalists rather than publishers. The Anti-SLAPP Guide (/law/slapp-response-playbook) explains your rights under the new anti-SLAPP provisions in the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023.
How do I issue a correction that complies with IPSO rules?
Under IPSO Editors' Code Clause 1, corrections must be published promptly and with due prominence — meaning a correction of a front-page error should appear on the front page, not buried on page 47. The correction must clearly state the error and the accurate information. It should not simultaneously introduce new inaccuracies, and it must distinguish between a correction and an apology. Use the Corrections Generator in this pack to produce an IPSO-compliant correction notice for any published error.
How does privacy law affect pre-publication decisions?
Privacy claims in the UK are brought under the tort of misuse of private information, developed through Article 8 ECHR case law. A court will balance Article 8 (right to privacy) against Article 10 (freedom of expression). Relevant factors include: whether the claimant had a reasonable expectation of privacy, whether they are a public figure (in which case their public role attracts reduced privacy protection), and whether publication serves a genuine public interest that outweighs the privacy intrusion. The Defamation Risk Checklist in this pack prompts you to consider privacy alongside defamation risk before publication.
What is the "serious harm" threshold under the Defamation Act 2013?
Under the Defamation Act 2013 s.1, a statement is not defamatory unless its publication has caused, or is likely to cause, serious harm to the claimant's reputation. For companies, this means serious financial loss. The serious harm threshold was introduced to deter trivial claims. However, courts have interpreted it broadly — statements circulated to a small but highly relevant audience (such as professional contacts) can still cause serious harm even if the overall readership is low. Run the Defamation Risk Checklist to assess whether your story is likely to meet the threshold.

Related packs

Court Reporting Pack
Contempt checker, reporting restrictions, and court reporting guides.
Editor Standards Pack
Standards tools for editors: corrections, right of reply, ethics, and AI disclosure.
Corrections & Right of Reply Pack
Focused pack on corrections and right of reply with supporting law guides.

Related guides

TemplatesObituary PackRead →TemplatesPitching PackRead →TemplatesSocial Media Policy PackRead →TemplatesCourt Day PackRead →TemplatesCourt Reporting PackRead →