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
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
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
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
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
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
- Defamation Act 2013 — serious harm threshold, truth, honest opinion, public interest, and privilege defences
- Human Rights Act 1998 — Article 8 (privacy) and Article 10 (freedom of expression): the balancing exercise courts apply
- IPSO Editors' Code of Practice — Clause 1 (Accuracy), Clause 3 (Privacy), Clause 9 (Reporting of crime)
- CPR Practice Direction 53B — the pre-action protocol for defamation claims; sets out the steps before proceedings are issued
- Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 — anti-SLAPP early-dismissal provisions for journalists facing strategic litigation
- Inforrm — Media Law Blog — commentary on UK media law cases; essential reading for tracking new judgments
- NUJ Media Law Guidance — NUJ practical guides on defamation, privacy, and contempt for working journalists
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.