The record must withstand scrutiny.

LegalEvidence considers whether publication contributes to legitimate public understanding of matters including judicial and regulatory proceedings, corporate conduct, financial activity, public office, fraud, corruption, sanctions, ownership structures and other matters of public significance.

For publications governed by the law of England and Wales, this approach takes account of Section 4 of the Defamation Act 2013, which addresses publication on matters of public interest and reasonable belief that publication was in the public interest.

Relevant framework: Defamation Act 2013, s.4 — Publication on matter of public interest.

LegalEvidence distinguishes between:

For England and Wales, Section 1 of the Defamation Act 2013 provides that a statement is not defamatory unless publication has caused or is likely to cause serious harm to the claimant’s reputation; for a body trading for profit, serious harm requires serious financial loss or likely serious financial loss. LegalEvidence nevertheless applies its verification standard regardless of whether the statutory serious-harm threshold would ultimately be met.

Research may include court records, judgments, indictments, regulatory decisions, government records, corporate filings, sanctions records, authenticated documents, interviews, OSINT research and lawful on-site investigation.

Material assertions should ordinarily be corroborated where reasonably possible.

A source’s existence does not establish the truth of everything contained within it. LegalEvidence therefore distinguishes between:

• what a source alleges,
• what a document establishes, and
• what a competent authority has determined.

Where UK data-protection law applies, LegalEvidence considers the UK GDPR and the Data Protection Act 2018.

Schedule 2, Part 5, paragraph 26 of the Data Protection Act 2018 provides specific provisions concerning processing for journalistic purposes where publication is reasonably believed to be in the public interest and application of specified UK GDPR provisions would be incompatible with those journalistic purposes.

The journalism provisions are not a blanket exemption from data-protection law. The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) expressly notes that media organisations remain subject to data-protection law and that reliance on the journalism exemption depends on its statutory requirements being satisfied.

Before publication, material investigative records may undergo LegalEvidence’s internal review process involving legal professionals across the following regions, according to the jurisdictions and issues involved:

Review considers, as applicable:

This review is an internal publication safeguard. It does not constitute a judicial determination or independent certification of the subject matter.

Where reasonably practicable, a person or entity who is the subject of material adverse reporting is given an opportunity to respond before publication.

The response is assessed against the underlying evidence.

Silence is not evidence of guilt.

A refusal to comment, failure to respond or denial unsupported by documentation does not independently establish the truth or falsity of the underlying allegation.

LegalEvidence does not accept payment, gifts, favors or other consideration in exchange for removing, suppressing, delaying, softening or materially altering editorial content.

A subject may nevertheless request a correction or amendment by producing relevant evidence. Requests involving:

are considered on their merits.

Membership or payment for research services provides no entitlement to a particular editorial outcome.

Investigators may use lawful OSINT methods, public registries, court databases, corporate records, regulatory databases, interviews, field investigation and other legitimate research techniques.

LegalEvidence does not authorize unlawful access to computer systems, impersonation, bribery, theft of records or other unlawful methods of obtaining information.

Where confidential material is received, its provenance, authenticity and public-interest significance are assessed before reliance or publication.

The existence of information in an investigative file does not mean that information belongs in the public record.

Personal information should be published only where its inclusion is relevant and legally supportable in the circumstances.

Particular care is required with sensitive or special-category information, criminal-offence data, private addresses, family information and information capable of creating unnecessary risks to individuals.

UK law provides specific rules concerning special-category and criminal-offence data, including circumstances involving journalism and substantial public interest.

Unless and until determined by a competent authority, allegations remain allegations and unresolved proceedings remain unresolved.

LegalEvidence does not use the existence of an indictment, complaint, regulatory investigation or civil claim as proof that the underlying allegation is true.

Where a matter subsequently results in dismissal, acquittal, reversal, settlement, delisting or another material disposition, the record should be updated accordingly.

Advertisers, members, subjects, complainants, sources and commercial partners receive no contractual or editorial right to dictate investigative conclusions.

A paid LegalEvidence membership may provide access to research tools, databases or professional services. It does not purchase favorable coverage, removal, suppression, amendment or a particular evidentiary classification.

Where evidence establishes an allegation, we call it an allegation. Where proceedings remain unresolved, we say so.

Where an authority has made a finding, we identify the authority and finding. Where a person has been cleared, acquitted or a decision overturned, that belongs in the record too.

The purpose is not to reach the harshest conclusion. It is to publish the most defensible account of the evidence available.