Liverpool John Moores University has threatened to sue a Conservative MP after he criticised its relations with the Libyan regime, Index on Censorship has learned.
Robert Halfon MP, whose grandfather was expelled from Libya in 1968, has been vociferous in his opposition to the Gadaffi family, and particularly its ties with UK universities.
London School of Economics director Sir Howard Davies resigned earlier this month after it was disclosed the school had taken £1.5 million from the north African state.
LJMU does not deny that it has had dealing with the Libyan regime, saying in a statement that “everything that we have done has been delivered transparently, at the invitation or with the encouragement and the support of the FCO (through the British Ambassador) and the British Council.”
British Prime Minister David Cameron said this week that Universities should ask “some pretty searching questions” about relations with Libya.
On Monday, the coalition government published its draft libel reform bill, which proposes to protect expression of “honest opinion”.
Yesterday the UK Justice Secretary laid out his plans for the draft defamation bill in the House of Commons. You can read it here. The Deputy Prime Minister, a strong supporter, also sets out his vision for the bill here.
The publication of the draft legislation was the culmination of a campaign Index on Censorship has led for the last 18 months to reform England’s archaic libel laws. The Free Speech Is Not For Sale report co-written by Index on Censorship and English PEN set the framework for a national debate about free expression and reputation. With a third partner, Sense About Science, we signed up 55,000 people, predominantly from the UK and USA, to join our campaign.
When our campaign began no political party in Britain had committed to wholesale reform of these laws since 1945; at the last general election each of the main political parties had done so. Over the past nine months, the coalition government took forward our suggestions. We are now working to improve the bill ahead of its passage through parliament over the next year.
As John Kampfner, our CEO, outlined in today’s Financial Times, English law had been used by the powerful to chill the free speech of NGOs, academics and other citizens around the world. The proposed changes go a considerable way to addressing the imbalance. This will be the first time in a generation that UK libel laws have been looked at anew – and we are confident that it will make a significant difference to free expression across the globe.
Rachel Ehernfeld’s case highlighted the problem of “libel tourism” in English courts. Emily Badger got her reaction to the government’s proposed reforms (more…)
Yesterday’s Defamation & Privacy industry conference neatly coincided with the publication of the government’s draft defamation bill, in time for the final panel to dissect and critique it after lunch.
Tracey Brown, director, Sense About Science, and part of the Libel Reform campaign, welcomed the bill’s content while expressing caution over certain elements, for example Section Two proposals for the “Responsible publication on matter of public interest”.
“My first reaction is that we need to look again under [section] Two, items A-H, which I think still represent hurdles which the court may use as a checklist before making a defence available. I am quite concerned about that — [it] may really limit the availability of the defence for citizen journalists.”
“I’m really disappointed that corporate claimants haven’t been addressed,” she added. “The bill is yet to address ISPs and the internet in a forceful way.”
Sarah Jones, head of litigation, BBC said she was pleased to see jury trials going because “a lot of preliminary issues you would like to have answers to have to be left over to trial, and for the defendant that could be the difference between being prepared to defend and not.”
On the back of that, she said, there was a new procedure for early determination of questions, which would have otherwise been left to a jury. “On the downside, of course, that may mean there are a lot of satellite applications knocking around, that perhaps otherwise we wouldn’t have seen, I don’t know.”
Pia Sarma, head of legal at the Times, said she was glad to see jury trial issue tackled. Fair comment, as a more “subjective” defence was her main concern, leaving questions still to be answered, such as how a statement of opinion will be established. She wasn’t convinced it mattered whether it was called honest opinion or honest comment.
For Justin Walford, legal manager at the Sun, juries had been a “luxury in the past” which vastly added to costs, so he was pleased by this reduction in costs, but asked for clarification about what conditions would require a jury and at what stage it would be decided. He questioned how the “new procedure for defamation cases” would work. Would it be possible to arbitrate some matters before proceedings were issued, or rather than having to go to a High Court hearing? Issues could be decided early without “wasting huge amounts of time pleading justification pleas to different meanings”.
John Kampfner, CEO, Index on Censorship, while disappointed in the omission of corporations and ISPs, said he saw it as a “good bill” and a good starting point. Section seven of the draft bill, addressing Jurisdiction, is very important, and would deter cases of libel tourism, he said. “The courts must in the future be satisfied that England and Wales are the most appropriate place, not just equivalent, but the most.”
In two fell swoops, by correcting the body of law and dealing with jurisdiction, “this most important area, and one of the greatest symbolism, hopefully will have been tackled.”
The Government’s draft defamation bill, published yesterday:
