‘Disappearing Dan Wootton Articles Show a Serious Need for S40 Alternative’

The influence of the rich and powerful over what can and cannot be published in the UK is longstanding and often rooted in a broken system. But it is not an unfixable problem.

Last week, the Guardian, the Mirror, various other Reach sites, and The National removed stories after a legal warning made by a lawyer acting for suspended GB News presenter and former MailOnline columnist Dan Wootton, following a Byline Times investigation into his conduct and subsequent Metropolitan Police investigation. 

In response, a spokesperson for the Guardian Media Group told Press Gazette bluntly: “Following a review, the article has been taken down.”

The basis for such legal threats is often along the lines of ‘the police investigation triggers a right to privacy’, with the 2022 decision of ‘Bloomberg LP v ZXC’, where the Supreme Court found pre-charge suspects have a reasonable expectation of privacy, invariably cited.

Coincidentally, this seems to be the basis for guidance issued by the Attorney General following the reporting on the Russell Brand allegations – something Impress has recently moved to clarify in a letter to Victoria Prentis KC.

While an awkward teething phase can follow new legal precedents which limit press freedom, in this instance any reasonable expectation of privacy Wootton (who denies criminality but has never denied being, or being connected, to false online personas) may hope to enjoy pre-charge is not absolute and can be eclipsed by another powerful legal position: the public interest.

The public interest is a fluid concept, ultimately decided by judges and regulators, but offers a broad protection to journalists and editors where it is interpreted in good faith. 

This latest retraction of news coverage across high-profile archives reveals either that these news providers were not persuaded that there was a strong public interest defence in the Wootton reporting (although seemingly strong enough to publish in the first place), or that the legal threat was sufficiently chilling that they caved and removed the stories.

Without a doubt, legal threats can present an existential challenge to news publishers. Litigation costs are, on average, £750,000 and most legal cases now take years to be resolved through the courts.

Even if an editorial team stands