Even if RB is tried and found not guilty of rape, this DOESN'T mean he would be successful suing the press.
The Times and C4 can justify this in various ways.
Brand's behaviour doesn't really satisfy employment standards we would expect from public broadcasters. Using Brand as an example is a much lower threshold to argue in terms of why there should be a public debate about Brand in particular.
They also have case law on their side in terms of the public interest.
David Banks AT DBanksy
Remember, media law geeks, that The Sunday Times and #Dispatches are relying on the public interest in their investigation into Russell Brand. 30 years ago the ST published the story that led to the courts establishing the Reynolds Defence for public interest journalism.
Replaced now by the statutory defence of publication in the public interest in the Defamation Act 2013, the ‘10 steps’ of the Reynolds Defence are still a useful guide to journalists working on issues of public interest that might face legal challenge
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reynolds_v_Times_Newspapers_Ltd
The premise of this as a defence is as follows:
The case provided the Reynolds defence, which could be raised where it was clear that the journalist had a duty to publish an allegation even if it turned out to be wrong.
And the ten basic points are:
Depending on the circumstances, the matters to be taken into account include the following. The comments are illustrative only.
1) The seriousness of the allegation. The more serious the charge, the more the public is misinformed and the individual harmed, if the allegation is not true.
2) The nature of the information, and the extent to which the subject-matter is a matter of public concern.
3) The source of the information. Some informants have no direct knowledge of the events. Some have their own axes to grind, or are being paid for their stories.
4) The steps taken to verify the information.
5) The status of the information. The allegation may have already been the subject of an investigation which commands respect.
6) The urgency of the matter. News is often a perishable commodity.
7) Whether comment was sought from the plaintiff. He may have information others do not possess or have not disclosed. An approach to the plaintiff will not always be necessary.
8) Whether the article contained the gist of the plaintiff's side of the story.
9) The tone of the article. A newspaper can raise queries or call for an investigation. It need not adopt allegations as statements of fact.
10) The circumstances of the publication, including the timing.
This list is not exhaustive. The weight to be given to these and any other relevant factors will vary from case to case. Any disputes of primary fact will be a matter for the jury, if there is one.
Arguably, there is a case about the role of the public broadcasters and the status and behaviour of stars, which was not challenged and was to the detriment of female staff and any females the star may have come into contact with (hence the need to include a lot of what some posters have called 'extra fluff'. It's not. It's about standards in public life of those in positions of power and authority - that's Brand AND his managers at TV and radio).
You also have the point about the female comedian WhatsApp safety group and the wider argument about women in comedy not feeling safe.
And more generally the fact that women in the media industry do not feel able to report rape or sexual assault by any star due to power imbalances and the risk of THEIR reputational damage and loss of career. And the total lack of trust in the criminal justice system when it comes to rape.
And THESE are really important considerations in the nature of the allegations and the way they've been presented. And the strength of any case Brand might counter without criminal case against him or even with a firm not guilty verdict. BECAUSE IT'S NOT JUST ABOUT BRAND AS AN INDIVIDUAL. It's about the wider context of his behaviour and how even lesser behaviour was tolerated and ignored over a long period of time due to a pursuit of ratings over all else.
Thats why they included stuff like the discussion about removing all female production staff to 'protect them' and allow their star to continue. This shouldn't even have been a serious consideration. It would be unthinkable in every other industry as it's straight up institutional sexism at work.
C4 and The Times might get accused of failing on certain points over trying to over hype the story. I strongly suspect that the women concerned haven't received a penny for giving their stories in line with some of the considerations above. With regards to timing, some will argue that it's a conspiracy to shut up Brand cos he's after the establishment but I doubt that would stand up to much in court. Indeed the timing could work in C4 and The Times favour precisely because Brand already no longer is working on mainstream TV in the UK so there is less for him to lose from loss of existing TV work.
Brand's lawyers know this. C4 and The Times know this. And also have a point that will be exceptionally difficult to strike down in court in Brand's favour.
I do wish that people would stop thinking it's trial by media. It's about a lot more than that and a lot more than Brand himself. There is a real failure to understand many of the points made by The Times and C4 and the importance of these points.
I do think Brand would be foolish to go to court. He is a self confessed sex addict. His own words aren't exactly going to help him in terms of a good character reference. (Which also ties in with the extent of damage to his reputation - he can't argue that as much as he was never squeaky clean). He'd end up with a lot of stress and a big legal bill. He may try and to it, in order to enhance his status as anti-establishment and to try and 'score a hit against the main stream media by costing them a lot' but that's going to be expensive and risky and unlikely to result in a net gain.
The Reynolds Defence is really quite robust even though on the face of it, it might sound like it's protects the all powerful mass media. It requires a lot of hoops and work to meet the threshold in a court. And that's a MASSIVE balance in power whether others want to realise it or not - because it's centring the public interest - ordinary people not celebrities nor institutions.