Grigory Luchansky vs Times Newspaper
This case has entered the annals of English Law, and is now being studied in law schools.
In 2001 Judge of the High Court of England and Wales, Sir Charles Gray (Justice Gray) in the case of Grigory Luchansky v. the publisher of the newspaper "The Times" company Times Newspaper, its editor Stothard and journalists Lister and Bone, declared that the article published in 1999 in the newspaper "The Times" in which Dr. Luchansky was presented as the boss of the largest Russian criminal organization, participated in a criminal laundering of billions of dollars and the smuggling of nuclear weapons as defamatory and unsubstantiated.
Judge Gray refused to accept the arguments of "The Times" that the hearing should be canceled, or delayed, allegedly because Grigory Luchansky cannot receive compensation of damages, is "a man with a bad reputation," and has a personal ban of Secretary of State for Home Department of Her Majesty to enter into the UK on the grounds that his presence in the country "will not contribute to the public good". Judge Gray also denied the right to use "professional privilege" by the Times for the re-publication of these articles online.
Later in 2001 Judges Lord Justice Simon Brown and Lord Justice Longmore of Court of Appeal of England and Wales refused to satisfy the appeal of newspaper "The Times" and refused to revoke the Judge Grey decision in the case of Grigory Luchansky v. the Times. The judges noted the failure of the Home Office of Her Majesty to provide a clear explanation for the ban on entry to the UK of Dr. Luchansky, pointed out the contradictions in the actions of Her Majesty's Government and despite the ban, allowed, Dr Luchansky to enter the country to testify.
Court of Appeal of England and Wales, Judges Lord Justice Thorpe, Lord Justice Brooke and Sir Martin Nourse repeatedly refused the appeal of the newspaper "The Times" on cancellation or postponement of Judge Grey decision in the case of Luchansky v. the Times, confirming that in accordance with the standards of "responsible journalism", prior to the publications of defamatory articles in 1999 with the extremely grave accusations against Dr Luchansky, "The Times" was obliged to carefully check published allegations and hear the position of Dr Luchansky.
The Court ruled that the appeal of newspaper "The Times" should be denied, Judge Gray's decisions should be confirmed and petition of newspaper "The Times" to the House of Lords should be refused.
In 2002 Royal Judge of the Supreme Court of England and Wales, Lord Justice Simon Brown has refused to admit request of newspaper "Times" to amend the law of England and Wales, which would exonerate publishers and journalists form the liabilities due to the storage of Internet archives of deliberately slanderous articles. Judges have confirmed that defamatory articles published on the Internet about Dr. Luchansky without informing the readers that the newspaper did not have any evidence confirming such allegations and that court hearings are being held with regards to such publications did not comply with the policy of "responsible journalism".
However, the Judges agreed with the request of the newspaper "Times" to return the case to Judge Grey for him to determine whether deliberately defamatory articles by "Times" are of such importance for society that they should continue to be published on the Internet.
In 2001 Royal Judge of the High Court of England and Wales, Sir Charles Gray (Justice Gray) denied the request of newspaper "Times" of the right to "professional privilege" for re-posting two slanderous articles dd. 1999 defaming Dr. Luchansky on the Internet.
Without denying the fact that the allegations are false and unproven, "The Times" demanded the right to publish them on the Internet "in the public interest". Judge Gray ruled that every access to archived articles is a separate publication, and correspondingly the right to "professional privilege" cannot be applied to materials which are libelous and are a subject of the court proceedings.
In 2002 Royal judge of the High Court of England and Wales, Sir Charles Gray (Gray Justice) dismissed the request of newspaper "Times" to postpone hearings on the Grigory Luchansky case "in order to gather additional evidence." Judge Gray refused to consider as evidence report prepared by the Prosecutor's Office of Bologna (Italy) about operation "Web", because such report did not contain any specific information about Dr. Luchansky involvement in large-scale money laundering through the Bank of New York and because the Italian Judge Dzuffi has refused to issue a warrant authorizing pre-trial arrest of Dr. Luchansky.
Judge Gray pointed out that the opinion of the "Times" and their efforts to prove the allegations with regards to large scale money laundering by Dr Luchansky is significantly weakened by the fact that the newspaper has admitted that two other publications are slanderous.
Judge Gray also noted that, despite the warnings provided by the court about the duty of responsible journalists to ask Dr. Luchansky about his point of view, "The Times", continued finishing expedition for the materials allegedly compromising Dr. Luchansky without informing him about it.
In 2002 the House of the Lords dismissed the appeal the newspaper "The Times", refusing to reverse or revoke the decision of Judge Gray and Court of Appeal of England and Wales stating that the request of Times for "Professional privilege" is redundant.
In 2004 the Chairman of the British Special Immigration Appeals Commission ruled that any personal reasons and justification of the ban issued by the Secretary of State Home Department of Her Majesty with regards to Dr. Luchansky prohibiting him to enter into the UK must be fair and be made public.
In the same year 2004 Secretary of State Home Department of Her Majesty revoked a ban on Dr. Luchansky entry to the UK without providing explanation.
In 2005 the Home Office of Great Britain refuses to compensate Dr. Luhanskiy's costs incurred during legal proceedings with Her Majesty's Government.
However, in 2006 the Home Office of Great Britain agrees to pay a considerable amount of money as compensation of Dr. Luchansky's costs and moral damages.
In 2009 the European Court of Human Rights dismissed the claim of the British newspaper The Times v. Government of UK, thus confirming the invalidity of defamatory statements published with regards to Russian businessman Grigory Luchansky.