904-NMS-1220-15-F4.DOC But where there is a factual demonstration of sufficient steps being taken to ascertain the ‘other side of the story’ and this opportunity, when presented, has been ignored, no more can be expected if it is also shown that the article when published was not unreasonable in its content, tone and tenor. This decision gave us the ‘Reynolds defence’, one that can be raised where it is established that the journalist in question had a duty to pubish an allegation even if it ultimately turned out to be wrong. The fact that this has now been abolished by a subsequent statute in England is I think immaterial to this discussion.18 Nicholls LJ set out ten criteria against which attempts to use the Reynolds defence might be assessed. This list, reproduced below, was even then said to be not exhaustive and very largely fact-dependent: 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. 18 The Defamation Act, 2013 23 of 30 ::: Uploaded on - 10/09/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 03/02/2020 18:08:37 :::