PROCEDURE

The case originated in an application (no. 42435/02) against the Kingdom of Sweden lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a British national, Mr Anthony White (“the applicant”), on 29 November 2002.

The applicant was represented by Mr E. Kalman, a lawyer practising in Stockholm. The Swedish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms I. Kalmerborn, Ministry for Foreign Affairs.

On 11 January 2005 the Court declared the application partly inadmissible and decided to communicate the complaint concerning the right to respect for private and family life to the Government. Under the provisions of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention, it decided to examine the merits of the application at the same time as its admissibility.

THE FACTS

I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

The applicant lives in Beira, Mozambique.

On 29 and 30 September and 1 October 1996, the two main evening newspapers in Sweden, Expressen and Aftonbladet, published a series of articles in which various criminal offences were ascribed to the applicant, including an assertion that he had murdered Olof Palme, the Swedish Prime Minister, in 1986. As part of the publication of this information, the newspapers also reported statements of individuals who rejected the allegations made against the applicant. Moreover, on 1 October, Expressen published an interview with the applicant, in which he denied any involvement in the alleged offences.

On 23 September 1998 the applicant brought a private prosecution against the newspapers through their legally responsible editors (ansvariga utgivare). He claimed that the editors were responsible for gross defamation, or alternatively defamation of a normal degree, under chapter 7, section 4, subsection 14 of the Freedom of the Press Act (Tryckfrihets-förordningen), and chapter 5, section 2 (or section 1) of the Criminal Code (Brottsbalken). He also joined an action for damages to the private prosecution and sought compensation for mental suffering and pecuniary damage.

The District Court (tingsrätten) of Stockholm held an oral preparation of the case on 1 February 1999 and an oral hearing on 27-28 January and 1‑3 February 2000. It heard several witnesses. In accordance with the normal procedure in cases concerning criminal liability under the Freedom of the Press Act, the court sat with three professional judges and a jury of nine members.

The District Court put to the jury 66 questions relating to the articles published in Expressen and 76 questions relating to the articles published in Aftonbladet. Each question referred to one or more statements or pictures published in the various articles, and the jury had to answer whether the publication of the statements or pictures constituted gross defamation or defamation of a normal degree. The jury answered all but six questions in the negative. In accordance with the applicable rules, the jury’s finding of “no guilt” was final. As regards the remaining six questions, however, the jury found that certain published statements or pictures amounted to defamation of a normal degree. The court then had to make a re-assessment of liability. The contravening statements or pictures were the following:

The heading on the front page stating “He is pointed out as PALME’S MURDERER” [“Han pekas ut som PALMES MÖRDARE”] together with a picture of the applicant. [Expressen, 30 September 1996]

The text on page 6 reporting a statement made by an unnamed source within the South African intelligence service: “He is the type of person that you do not cheat unpunished. He kills without a second’s hesitation.” [“Han är den typen av person som man inte lurar ostraffat. Han dödar utan en sekunds tvekan.”] [Aftonbladet, 29 September 1996]

The text on page 6: “In addition to Long reach, Williamson and White had several companies together, some with links to the Mafia. Among others, the GMR Group in the Seychelles which was used for laundering money from illegal activities. When Long reach was wound up, White is supposed to have started a sawmill in Beira in Mozambique. A perfect cover for other activities. Weapons and drugs are two products that have been mentioned.” [“Vid sidan av Long reach hade Williamson och White flera andra företag ihop, en del med kopplingar till maffian. Bland annat GMR Group på Seychellerna som användes för att tvätta pengar från illegal verksamhet. När Long reach avvecklades ska White ha startat ett sågverk i Beira i Mocambique. En perfekt täckmantel för annan verksamhet. Vapen och droger är två produkter som nämnts.”] [Aftonbladet, 29 September 1996]

The text on page 6: “White has been dealing with most things. – He is one of southern Africa’s biggest poachers, tells a source. It is to a large degree his fault that the elephants in Mozambique are all but extinct. Together with Williamson, Anthony White appropriated the ivory.” [“White har sysslat med det mesta. – Han är en av södra Afrikas största tjuvskyttar, berättar en källa. Det är till stor del hans skuld att elefanterna i Mocambique är så gott som utrotade. Anthony White tog tillsammans med Williamson hand om elfenbenen.”] [Aftonbladet, 29 September 1996]

The subheading on page 6 “... but earns more on smuggling and poaching” [“... men tjänar mest på smuggling och tjuvjakt”] together with the ensuing text stating “But according to several statements, the main part of his income derives from smuggling and poaching.” [“Men enligt flera uppgifter kommer största delen av hans inkomster från smuggling och tjuvjakt.”] [Aftonbladet, 30 September 1996]

The caption on page 7 “TODAY – SMUGGLER IN MOZAMBIQUE” [“I DAG – SMUGGLARE I MOCAMBIQUE”] under a picture of the applicant. [Aftonbladet, 30 September 1996]

By a judgment of 24 February 2000, the District Court acquitted the editors in all respects and rejected the applicant’s claims for damages. It found that all six passages in issue depicted the applicant as a criminal or a person with a reprehensible lifestyle. However, given, inter alia, the great general interest in these statements in Sweden, the court found that it had been justifiable to publish the relevant statements and pictures. It further considered that the newspapers had had a reasonable basis for the published information. In the latter respect, the court had regard to how and from whom the information had been obtained and to the fact that, due to the nature of the information in question and the constraints of a fast news service, the possibility of checking the veracity of the statements had been limited.

The applicant appealed to the Svea Court of Appeal (Svea hovrätt). The appellate court held an oral hearing and heard essentially the same witnesses as the District Court.

On 21 February 2002 the Court of Appeal upheld the District Court’s judgment. It gave the following reasoning: “The Court of Appeal finds, like the District Court, that the relevant information in Expressen and Aftonbladet depicts Anthony White as a criminal and as having a reprehensible lifestyle. The information has been liable to expose him to the contempt of others and consequently, as such, constitutes defamation. The question then is whether there are grounds for excluding liability. Pursuant to chapter 7, section 4, subsection 14 of the Freedom of the Press Act, and chapter 5, section 1, subsection 2 of the Criminal Code, liability for defamation by means of printed matter is excluded if two conditions are met: 1) it would be justifiable to communicate the information, and 2) the information should be correct or the communicator should have had a reasonable basis for the assertion. If the information is correct it may as a rule be communicated even if it is deprecatory, if this is justifiable with reference to the public news interest. However, there is no general right always to speak the truth if the statements are offensive. A balance has to be struck between the protection against offensive statements and the demands of freedom of speech. In certain situations the interest of protecting someone against offensive statements has to yield to the public interest. Expressen has claimed that, on account of the public interest – the murder of the country’s prime minister –, it was justifiable to name and show a photograph of Anthony White in the newspaper. Aftonbladet, for its part, has asserted that, in the circumstances, it was justifiable to describe Anthony White’s personality and conduct. The question of who killed Olof Palme attracted at the relevant time and still attracts considerable public interest. As regards the question of whether in the circumstances it was justifiable to communicate the information, the Court of Appeal agrees with the District Court’s assessment that it was obviously legitimate to write about the so-called “South Africa trail” and to present information in this regard. However, the question is whether it was justified to identify the plaintiff by name and picture in the manner employed and to publish statements to the effect that he was supposed to be guilty of large scale, serious criminality. [The responsible editors] have asserted that the publications in question were not remarkable in view of the fact that it was commonly known who Anthony White was and of which crimes he was guilty. It emerges from the information that has come to hand in the case that, within certain groups in southern Africa and Europe, it was known that Anthony White had engaged in the alleged activities. It has also been shown that books have been published in which Anthony White has been named and his service as an elite soldier in the army unit Selous Scouts, which has a dubious reputation, has been described. The information in the case reveals that Anthony White has been much better known than he has wished to admit in southern Africa and among representatives of various organisations for the protection of animals and the conservation of nature in southern Africa as well as in Europe. Anthony White does not therefore appear as an ordinary private person with regard to whom there is a particular interest of protection. In view of the above, and for the reasons given by the District Court in this respect, the Court of Appeal finds that it was justifiable in the circumstances to publish Anthony White’s name and picture in Expressen and to publish information about the person Anthony White in Aftonbladet. In so finding, the Court of Appeal has also taken into account that Anthony White had declined to comment on information presented by the journalists of Aftonbladet. With respect to the question of whether the information is correct, it is word against word. Anthony White has asserted that he is innocent of all the accusations, that the information given about him was based on pure invention, that it is unverified or given by untrustworthy persons and that it was based on third or fourth generation hearsay, while [the responsible editors] appear still to assert that it cannot be excluded that Anthony White could be the person who murdered Olof Palme. The Court of Appeal concludes, however, that [the responsible editors], who have the burden of proof for their claims, have not shown that the disseminated information was correct. As regards the question of whether there has been a reasonable basis for the assertions, the Court of Appeal takes account of the following considerations. In defence of the publications in question, [the responsible editors] have asserted, among other things, that Anthony White’s name and picture have been published in international news media and on Swedish television. In response to what has been stated in this respect, the Court of Appeal would point out that each newspaper is responsible for its own publication. Consequently, the fact that the name and picture of the plaintiff had already been published by other news services has not relieved Expressen and Aftonbladet of the obligation to make their own assessment of the credibility of the information. The fact that the information had already been published by other media shows, however, that these news services might have considered that there was a reasonable basis for the information. In their defence, [the responsible editors] have also pointed out that, despite time constraints, they had careful checks made which gave an unequivocal picture of Anthony White. It has been established that the main basis for the assertions in issue in the case was the statements made by [the former senior official of the South African security police] Dirk Coetzee and that the newspapers checked that information mainly by having the journalists who wrote the articles contact journalist colleagues, public servants [and] representatives of various organisations for the protection of animals and the conservation of nature. However, with a few exceptions, the persons contacted have not been named. The contents of the testimony given by [the six journalist witnesses] before the Court of Appeal show that each of them separately has had high ambitions to find out the degree of truth of Dirk Coetzee’s statements and to check with reliable sources who the person Anthony White was. What has come to hand in the case reveals that the witnesses, each one through their own work, have received concordant information. Checks have been made with several informants in different countries and in different capacities. ... Having regard to the above, in particular the checks made, and to the fact that the informant Dirk Coetzee also here [before the Court of Appeal] has given the impression of being a credible person, the Court of Appeal considers that the communication of the identifying information does not appear unjustified. In the Court of Appeal’s view, there has been a reasonable basis for the assertion and the reproduction of the picture in Expressen. The Court of Appeal further considers that Aftonbladet, in the circumstances, must be considered to have performed the checks that were called for. Having regard to this and the reasons given with respect to the publication in Expressen, the Court of Appeal finds that there was also a reasonable basis for the assertions in Aftonbladet.”

On 29 May 2002 the Supreme Court (Högsta domstolen) refused the applicant leave to appeal.