“Neutral reportage provides defamation defence for responsible journalism of newsworthy disputes.”
Times Newspapers published articles reporting that Sergeant Flood, a police officer, was under investigation by the Extradition Unit. Flood sued for defamation. The newspaper could not prove the truth of the allegations but argued they were protected by the Reynolds defence and neutral reportage.
Whether the Reynolds defence and the doctrine of neutral reportage could protect a newspaper from defamation liability when reporting unproven allegations about a police officer's conduct.
The Supreme Court ruled in favour of Times Newspapers. The publication was protected by both the Reynolds defence and the principle of neutral reportage.
This case significantly strengthened press freedom by clarifying that journalists can report serious allegations without proving their truth, provided they maintain neutrality and the matter is of genuine public interest. It remains a cornerstone defence for media organisations facing defamation claims.
You're reading the free summary of Defamation — Flood v Times Newspapers Ltd. Create a free account to unlock the full reasoning, the cited authorities and the verbatim judgment — plus structured briefs for 412,000+ UK judgments.
No card required. Free forever.
OSCOLA Citation
Flood v Times Newspapers Ltd [2012] UKSC 11
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Falls back to Google for old citations BAILII catalogues separately
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.