Huw Edwards’ potential lawsuit against The Sun for its reporting has been called into question by a lawyer with expertise in defamation cases. Edwards was recently named as the subject of allegations made by The Sun that an unnamed BBC presenter had paid a 17-year-old for explicit photos. However, the police have stated that Edwards has no criminal case to answer, and The Sun has claimed that it never intended to allege criminality. Despite the growing criticism of The Sun’s reporting, lawyer Godwin Busuttil, who represented Cliff Richard in a similar case, expressed doubt about the strength of Edwards’ claim.
Busuttil argued that one of the main obstacles for Edwards would be the fact that he or his wife identified him as the subject of the allegations. He also stated that even if Edwards were identifiable, The Sun could potentially rely on other defenses. While the suggestion of criminal behavior has been denied by the police, there is protection for publications that are believed to be in the public interest under section 4 of the Defamation Act, even if they later turn out to be untrue. The Sun’s sources claiming that the BBC’s investigation was prompted by the parents, and not by their reporting, may also affect the case.
Privacy rights in similar cases, such as the one involving Richard and Bloomberg, have established that media organizations have no right to publish the identity of someone subject to a police investigation before they have been charged with an offense. However, Busuttil pointed out that it does not appear there was a substantive police investigation in Edwards’ case. There is a debate about whether the BBC would be classified as a “state organ” in relation to the Bloomberg case.
While privacy rights have often prevailed over newspapers’ freedom of information, Busuttil suggested that The Sun could argue a public interest defense based on Edwards’ fame and the questionable actions attributed to him. However, he maintained that the main point would be identification. Another lawyer, David Banks, agreed, stating that he could not recall a case where someone claimed that their identification was caused by media coverage. Banks also expressed doubt about whether Edwards, given his reported mental health issues, would be willing to pursue a lengthy, expensive, and potentially damaging libel claim.
