Members of the news media and others have a proper interest, some would say duty, in informing electors as a whole of relevant activities of individual politicians, the lawyer for the Sunday Times said.
Lord Lester QC said that plainly political discussion and debate of the sort at issue in the case covered matters of public interest. The requirement of a duty to public and/or that of a common interest between the newspaper and the general public was clearly fulfilled in the circumstances of the case.
He quoted a European Court of Human Rights judgment which made the point that not only did the press have the task of imparting information and ideas on political issues, but the public also had a right to receive them.
Mr Reynolds had not been the prime minister of Ruritania, but the prime minister of a country involved in a peace process with Mr John Major, intimately involving the public interest and of concern to both countries.
Lord Chief Justice Bingham asked if it would have made a difference if it was the prime minister of Ruritania. Lord Lester said perhaps not, but what might be of relevance was how it reflected on the readers in Britain.
He submitted that qualified privilege should be applied in cases involving the freedom to publish criticism of the way in which elected politicians discharged their public functions "since ministers and MPs are likely to be self-interested in shielding themselves from public criticism and effective scrutiny by the media and the public at large".
Lord Justice Hirst said if what Lord Lester was saying was right, then anybody could say anything they liked about any politician as long as it was without malice.
Lord Lester replied that if they were found to be reckless then they would not be entitled to qualified privilege.
Lord Justice Hirst said that if Lord Lester was right then as long as it was not malicious the politician did not have his reputation protected.
Counsel replied that the control was that the publisher must not act in bad faith or recklessly. Politicians also, of course, had the opportunity themselves of putting across their case in newspapers, which others did not.
He said that Mr Reynolds came to Britain about three times a month during that period to give interviews to the British media.