Is Editing What Judges Are For? Judicial Review of Journalists’ Editorial Decisions in Defamation Cases in the United Kingdom and European Court of Human Rights

By:

This Note contends that the European Court of Human Rights and British Courts should review certain editorial decisions of defendants in media defamation cases in order to resolve conflicts between the freedoms of expression and reputation. The Note discusses the traditional features of defamation law in the United Kingdom and European Court of Human Rights. It then examines how courts in both jurisdictions intended to enhance judicial scrutiny of journalists’ editorial decisions in defamation cases and whether the intended changes were realized in subsequent cases. Finally, the Note offers an alternative test for courts to apply when reviewing journalists’ editorial decisions.