The High Court has ordered Sunday Newspapers Limited, trading as the Sunday World, to disclose documents relied on or reviewed in preparing three articles about Liam Crawley, subject to any privilege claims. The order covers material in the publisher’s possession, power or procurement from 1 September 2013 to 31 May 2014, including interview notes or minutes.
Ms Justice Niamh Hyland made the discovery order on 18 June 2020 in proceedings in which Crawley seeks damages for defamation, negligence, breach of constitutional rights and breach of privacy. His claim concerns articles published on 13, 20 and 27 April 2014. The court did not decide those claims or whether the articles were true.
Crawley alleged that the articles conveyed, among other things, that he was a criminal, procured prostitutes, lived off their earnings, trafficked women illegally and was associated with illegal organisations. He also alleged that the publisher failed to check and verify information before publication. The publisher denied the alleged meanings and negligence. It pleaded that the words were true or true in all material respects, that Crawley’s reputation had not been injured, and that the articles were honestly held opinions and fair publication on a matter of public interest.
Crawley sought two broad categories of discovery: records relating to the publisher’s investigation of him and material relating to preparation of the articles, including interviews, transcripts, telephone details, photographs and letters. The publisher objected that the requests were too broad and unlimited in time, irrelevant, and would expose confidential journalistic sources.
Justice Hyland held that it was not inevitable that the publisher would succeed in claiming journalistic privilege over every document covered by the request. The publisher must therefore list documents in an affidavit of discovery and set out any privilege claims in the usual way. Where a description could identify a protected source or material, a more general description is acceptable. The judge noted the heavy burden on those seeking disclosure of a journalistic source.
The court also held that the pleaded negligence claim remained in the case because it had not been struck out, and that relevant documents could bear on it. The truth defence could also make some of the requested material potentially relevant. But the judge said pleading negligence did not entitle Crawley to every internal communication about the decision to publish.
The order was narrower than the categories initially sought: it is confined to material relied on or reviewed in writing the three articles and to the specified period. The judgment addressed discovery only; it made no finding on liability, truth, negligence or the merits of any privilege claim.