[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	The Law Commission
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> The Law Commission >> In In the Public Interest: Publication of Local Authority Inquiry Reports (Report) [2004] EWLC 289(APPENDIX_C) (15 July 2004) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/other/EWLC/2004/289(APPENDIX_C).html Cite as: [2004] EWLC 289(APPENDIX_C)

[New search] [Help]

APPENDIX C

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH ADVICE

1 Advice issued by the Department of Health in 2002 to those conducting investigations and inquiries in the Health Service addressing the precautions which should be taken to avoid losing the protection of qualified privilege

The following broad guidelines may assist those undertaking inquiries of this kind both in maximising the chance that publication of an ensuing report to the public at large will be held to attract the protection of qualified privilege as a matter of law and in minimising the chance of such prima facie protection being lost because of a finding of malice:

(1) It is no defence to an action in defamation that the defendant has merely repeated allegations made by others.

(2) Any limitations in the investigative process should be fully explained.

(3) The status of information and of its sources requires most careful attention. Great caution is required in relation to allegations based on hearsay or derived from an unidentified or anonymous source; and even more caution is required in the case of gossip or rumour. Any deficiencies in the information collected should be fully and fairly explained.

(4) Information should be tested and verified wherever possible. An explanation and warning should be provided where this is not possible.

(5) Those criticised should be given the fullest opportunity possible to respond to the specific detail of each allegation made against them; and their responses should be adequately and fairly reported.

(6) A report should always present both sides of each matter under investigation. Conversely, selectivity should always be avoided if there is any danger of a distorted picture being conveyed.

(7) The language of criticism should be temperate and balanced.

(8) Findings should be made or conclusions expressed only where the subject matter has been fully investigated and the evidence fully warrants the finding or conclusion concerned.

(9) Conversely, the evidence should never be manipulated to fit an existing assumption or pre-conceived idea.

(10) The more serious the nature of the allegations being investigated, the more vital its compliance with the above guidelines.