Dr Loutchansky is entitled to have damages determined at a future hearing but has told the Times he will not pursue damages if he is given a proper apology. The Times did not rely on a defence of justification or truth, it being no part of their case that Dr Loutchansky was either rightly or reasonably accused of criminal activity. The Judge rejected this argument. He also stated that they were wrong to place reliance on information from several of their sources and that the identity of other sources had wrongly been withheld by the Times. This defence is available to newspapers provided that they act responsibly in the public interest.
Responsible newspapers have a defence if they maintain proper journalistic standards.
Today's judgment corrects the imbalance in The Times' reporting of the case and, in particular, the claim in an article on 12 April 2001 that they had already been vindicated. Mr Justice Gray described the history of the Times' reporting of these proceedings as a very unhappy one and today granted an injunction restraining further publication of the allegations complained of.