FROM cinema to theatre to holidays to restaurants, acres of newsprint every week are devoted to reviews.

Their appeal to readers is obvious - for instance, if you're going to spend Euro100 of your hard-earned on a meal for two, you want to get it right: good food, friendly service, the right ambience.

And who better to point you in the right direction than your friendly newspaper restaurant critic? He/she spends their days and nights eating and drinking of your behalf. They separate the pigswill from the truffles, the silver spoon from the greasy spoon and in the process save you from expensive mistakes.

But what about the poor restaurateurs, we don't hear you ask. While a good review is undoubtedly excellent for business, a bad one can have devastating consequences.

Recently, a restaurateur was awarded A�25,000 damages following a newspaper review of his restaurant which his lawyers claimed to be "defamatory, damaging and hurtful". The Belfastpublished Irish News may have appealed the decision but the ruling raises questions about the freedom of the press.

The trouble began six years ago when restaurant critic Caroline Workman went to review Goodfellas in West Belfast. Finding the experience "hugely disappointing", she declared, amongst other things, that the cola was flat, the pA�tAcopyright did not have much flavour, her non-smoking table was beside a smoking table and the chicken marsala was "so sweet as to be inedible". Out of a five-star rating she awarded one star, which corresponded with the advice "stay at home".

Workman spent five years working in the restaurant trade before setting up her own food consultancy and is a respected food writer and former editor of the Bridgestone food guides. She clearly knows her onions.

Defending her review, she stated that her comments were "completely honest".

This judgment in Northern Ireland strikes at the heart of the critical process and raises the question:

Where does libel begin and freedom of speech end?

Surely newspapers should have the right to publish fair and honestly written reviews, contributed by experts in their field that engage in either praise or criticism when it is justified.

If restaurant critics aren't allowed tell their readers that dinner was dreadful then what future for reviewers?

Ross Golden-Bannon is restaurant critic for the Sunday Business Post and was an expert witness at the Goodfellas' case. "The title restaurant critic is just a posh word for secret shopper and we're the secret shoppers for thousands of restaurant customers and not for the restaurateurs, " he says.

"Critics anonymously test restaurants just like any other customer so we get an authentic experience and then report back to the public. If we are unable to honestly express our opinions our reviews will become sanitised and worthless."

Chef Ross Lewis of Chapter One, recent recipient of a Michelin star, agrees that the critic plays a positive role for both diners and restaurateurs. "Almost any business can benefit from well-informed criticism.

Restaurateurs generally don't like vindictive comment or irresponsible reporting but knowledgeable food critics keep restaurants on their toes." He argues that a constructively critical review allows restaurants to take a closer look at where things went wrong, and gives them a chance to ensure it doesn't happen again. "As long as the critic is responsible and informed, then restaurateurs should learn to take reviews constructively."

It's when reviewers aren't accurate that libel cases are won. Irish, American and Australian restaurant critics have all been sued successfully over inaccuracies in their reviews. In Britain, one reviewer was fired when it transpired that he hadn't actually visited the restaurant he had slated.

Feared Irish critic Helen Lucy Burke, who once found herself in the courts defending a review, agrees that accuracy is the key. As reviewer for The Dubliner magazine, she proposes to proceed reviewing exactly as she always has. "The worry with a case like this is that it might stimulate other restaurants to follow a similar path. Of course, restaurant reviewers can avoid libel cases by following simple guidelines; always taking someone knowledgeable about food with them and then reading the review to their companion to ensure they agree; always sticking with absolute fact; always using 'in my opinion' and having a contemporaneous record."

Chef Troy Maguire, who won huge acclaim at L'Gueuleton, agrees that the restaurant business needs reviewers, so long as they demonstrate integrity and knowledge. "As long as a critic is educated and responsible then they're welcome to write an honest review based on their dining experience.

Like all professions, critics can get things wrong occasionally, but you have to learn to take it all on the chin."

It remains to be seen whether the Irish News will win its appeal, but for now readers should sit back and enjoy the idiosyncrasies and opinions of their favourite critics everywhere. It may not be long before the fouth estate's voice in terms of food is usurped by identikit, officially approved press releases and soft core, spin -doctored spiel that's afraid, even disallowed, to call things as they are.

Jillian Bolger is former editor of 'Food & Wine' magazine