In a ruling that will be highly persuasive on the Jamaican courts, Britain's highest court has held that journalists who report responsibly on public officials on public interest issues but could not subsequently prove their allegation, are not guilty of libel.

The unanimous ruling by five law lords brings United Kingdom defamation law more closely in line with what exists in the United States and is being hailed on both sides of the Atlantic as an important shield to freedom of the press.

Lord Hoffman, who delivered the lead judgement, argued that what was critical was that the press "behaved fairly and responsibly in gathering and publishing the information."

If reporters acted in this fashion and their information was of public importance, he said, the fact that what they published was relevant would preclude prominent persons from winning libel damages.

Serious journalism

Said Lord Hale, another of the judges on the case: "We need more such serious journalism in this country and defamation law should encourage rather than discourage it.

"This will lead to greater robustness and willingness to tackle serious stories, which is what the judges said they wanted," Alan Rusbridger, the editor of Britain's Guardian newspaper, was quoted as saying.

The case involved a Saudi businessman, Muhammand Abdul Latif Jameel, whose business, according to a 2002 report by the Wall Street Journal and its European edition, the Wall Street Journal Europe, had been monitored by the Saudi government to determine whether it was being used, perhaps unwittingly, to steer money to terrorists groups.

Although the Wall Street Journal Europe has a circulation of only 18,000 in the U.K., Jameel sued in Britain, perhaps seeking to take advantage of the reputation of British courts of being sympathetic to plaintiffs.

Jameel said that he was libelled, but the Wall Street Journal argued that it had reported in the public interest. A lower court ruled in favour of the billionaire Saudi businessman and awarded him £40,000. The judgement was upheld at appeal until it was overturned by the House of Lords judges.

Stewart Karle, the general counsel at the Wall Street Journal, told the New York Times website that his company spent millions of dollars fighting the case, but that the decision represented an important turning point in English libel law.