19 May 09 | Uncategorized
Justice Secretary Jack Straw gave evidence to the select committee on libel and privacy this morning. And there are encouraging signs of a will for reform — though not in all the areas that matter. He is clearly convinced that costs — particularly conditional fee agreements — need tackling and told the committee, “I do believe there is a necessity actively to look at amending the law in advance of [Lord Justice] Jackson’s review.” Lord Justice Jackson, who is conducting a review of civil litigation costs, had just told the select committee minutes beforehand that he wanted there to be an “holistic” approach to reform, rather than anything “piecemeal”. So this is likely to be exactly what he fears. And one worries that the secretary of state’s proposals may in fact undercut Lord Justice Jackson’s comprehensive review — which may come up with radical reform.
Jack Straw also said that he would be looking at defamation online and ISPs’ liability — a consultation will be launched before the summer recess. However, when asked about libel tourism, the secretary of state said that he had not been convinced that there was a significant problem. The committee members were clearly surprised. They pointed out that the United States was legislating to protect its citizens from our libel laws and that cases were being heard in our courts where the plaintiffs had the flimsiest connections. However, Jack Straw repeated that he hadn’t yet been presented with the evidence to convince him. So it’s good news and bad news. The message has finally got through that costs are a significant chilling effect on free speech — and that’s something to celebrate. But it’s puzzling that libel tourism has made such little impact on Straw when it has been the cause of international condemnation — not only from politicians in the US but from the UN Human Rights Committee. Let’s hope that the select committee has got the evidence to convince him.
15 May 09 | Index Index, minipost, United Kingdom
Justice secretary Jack Straw has announced the government will not go ahead with plans for non-jury private inquests to cover cases involving “sensitive information”.
Read more here
30 Apr 09 | Uncategorized
The Ministry of Justice was more concerned with spinning the ‘Titan prisons’ controversy than complying with its own Freedom of Information Act, says
Chris Ames
(more…)
28 Apr 09 | Uncategorized
This is a guest post by Chris Ames
Earlier this month I pointed out the acute double standard that the government applies to disclosing ‘confidential’ information. By way of a quick update, I can report that it is actually worse than it looked.
The gist of the story then was that the Cabinet Office had succeeded in censoring part of a document that it was forced to disclose under the Freedom of Information Act, even though Jack Straw had already published the document in full when he was Foreign Secretary. The missing part of the document revealed that former UN weapons inspector Hans Blix had commented on an early draft of the September 2002 Iraq dossier and Straw used it to divert attention from the withdrawal of the notorious 45 minutes claim.
I have since obtained the letter that Straw’s private secretary sent Blix before Straw published the document. It shows that Straw did not actually obtain permission to publish Blix’s comments in the way that he did. Instead, he warned him that he might have to refer to one comment — that the dossier ‘did not exaggerate the facts, nor revert to rhetoric’ –– and sought to ‘check’ that he would have no objection.
In a piece yesterday for Comment is Free, I quoted from the letter that Blix sent Straw’s private secretary in response. I show how Straw ignored Blix’s clear statement that he had not seen the intelligence on which the dossier based its claims about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction and so ‘obviously’ was not endorsing those claims. In spite of this, Straw told parliament that:
‘The evidence that we put forward was a view that was widely shared at the time by other foreign intelligence agencies, as well, as it happened, by Dr Blix.’
The net effect of what Straw did here is probably worse than what the Cabinet Office warned against when censoring Blix’s comments. Anyone planning to trust the British government with confidential information is likely to assume not only that the information may be disclosed at some future date but that it might also be seriously misrepresented.
What the government will not do of course is to disclose ‘confidential’ information –– unless it suits its purposes to do so.
