UK ruling seen protecting investigative journalism

LONDON, Oct 11 (Reuters) Britain's highest court today ruled in favour of The Wall Street Journal Europe newspaper in a libel case decision being hailed as a major boost for investigative journalism in the UK.

The ruling is expected to help set a new standard for British libel trials that would give the country's media protection similar to that enjoyed by their counterparts in the United States.

It would allow journalists to fight libel actions by claiming that stories were in the public interest and involved serious and responsible journalism.

Senior media lawyer Mark Stephens of Finers Stephens Innocent, who represented the newspaper, welcomed the ruling by five law lords from the upper house of the British parliament.

''This is a decision which will free responsible investigative journalists from threats of libel,'' he said.

The libel laws of England have been widely seen as particularly friendly to claimants, with the onus on the writer or publisher to prove that what was written was true, as opposed to the claimant having to show it was false.

The Wall Street Journal Europe had appealed against a High Court decision that it should pay 40,000 pounds in damages to a Saudi businessman over a story which said his financial affairs were being monitored by the Saudi authorities.

The story published in 2002 claimed that bank accounts associated with a number of the most prominent Saudi citizens, including the businessman Mohammed Jameel, had been monitored at the request of U.S. authorities to ensure that no money was provided either intentionally or unknowingly to support terrorism.

In its defence, the paper argued that the story showed how strongly Saudi Arabia was working in the fight against terrorism.

The case could be brought in Britain as that is one of the countries where the business daily is published and sold. Jameel's lawyer Andrew Stephenson told Reuters they had sued in Britain because his client had a home and business interests in the country.

Geoffrey Robertson, counsel for the Journal, said the decision would provide the media in Britain with greater freedom to publish newsworthy stories.

''This is not a licence for irresponsible journalism,'' he said in a statement. ''The decision is an important step in moving freedom of speech closer to that enjoyed by the U.S. media under the First Amendment.

Reuters SHB DB2046