The rise of online platforms has put the public interest defence in defamation under close scrutiny, especially after the Defamation Act 2013 reshaped the legal setting.
What Section 4 changed
Section 4 of the Defamation Act 2013 offers a two‑part justification. First, the remark must concern a matter that the law deems of public concern. Second, the publisher must show a reasonable belief that releasing the remark served that concern.
The wording replaced the older Reynolds test, which required a “responsible journalism” label. By removing that label, Parliament signalled a shift toward a broader, more flexible approach.
Supreme Court guidance
The leading authority on the new wording is Serafin v Malkiewicz (2020). The Supreme Court explained that the draft bill once listed factors similar to those in Reynolds, but those factors were abandoned in favour of the broader statutory language.
In its analysis, the court stressed that the first limb – whether the remark dealt with a public matter – must be satisfied before the second limb – the reasonableness of belief – is considered. The judgment also warned that the old list of factors is no longer mandatory.
Related: Animal welfare knows no national borders
Balancing the rights under Article 10 and Article 8 of the European Court of Human Rights remains central. When the subject is a public figure, courts compare the value of free expression against the privacy interest.
If the remark targets the figure’s public conduct, the privacy right may be set aside.
In practice, the defence can be a double‑edged sword. A person posting a warning about a restaurant’s hygiene could argue that the public needs to know, yet the same post might be dismissed if the underlying concern is merely personal dissatisfaction. The court will weigh the seriousness of the alleged risk against the publisher’s belief in its relevance.
Overall, the legal environment demands careful assessment before hitting “publish”. The shift from a rigid list to a broader statutory test aims to protect genuine public discourse while curbing reckless accusations.