The four-year libel ordeal of British Sikh journalist Hardeep Singh took a significant turn today, when a court ordered that Indian claimant Baba Jeet Singh must pay £250,000 in security before an appeal begins in the case. Jeet Singh is suing over several claims made about him by Hardeep Singh in UK-based newspaper The Sikh Times. Last year, Mr Justice Eady had ruled that the secular court could not rule on matters of religious doctrine
Today’s ruling came after Jeet Singh’s UK lawyers, Ford & Warren, informed the court that they had not received instruction from the self-proclaimed holy man on the conduct of the appeal. The solicitors requested they no longer be listed on the court record as acting for Jeet Singh.
The appeal is scheduled to be heard on 28 February. But it now seems unlikely that hearing will go ahead, considering the holy man is nowhere to be found, and hence would seem unlikely to lodge £250,000 in the court within a fortnight, as ordered.
Interesting news ahead of a Court of Appeal hearing on security for costs in the Hardeep Singh case. In October High Court judge Lady Justice Smith granted Indian national Sant Baba Jeet Singh ji Maharaj the right to appeal in his libel case against journalist Hardeep Singh.
Ahead of the hearing, scheduled for tomorrow, Jeet Singh’s solicitors Ford & Warren wrote to the Court of Appeal to inform it that they are now in the process of making an application to come off the court record as acting for Jeet Singh.
The case centres on an article that Singh wrote in August 2007 for the Sikh Times, a British newspaper, in which he claimed that Jeet Singh was an “accused Cult leader” whose teachings were not in line with mainstream Sikh doctrine. The article also connected his followers with conflict in UK temples. The claimant — a self proclaimed “Holy Man” — has never visited the United Kingdom.
In May 2010 a High Court judge threw out the case brought against freelance British journalist Hardeep Singh. Mr Justice Eady ruled for a permanent stay with no right to appeal. Eady’s judgment held that secular courts should not make a judgment on a religious dispute.
The claiment’s application for appeal was granted on the limited basis that there are arguable issues in Singh’s article that do not tread on the forbidden area of doctrinal dispute.
This week’s libel debate organised by Inforrm and the Media Standards Trust was a reminder of how complex the issue is: five speakers aired their views and there was hardly any overlap between the topics they addressed. From libel tourism to conditional fee agreements and from tabloid excess to defining public interest, the ramifications go on and on.
Two politicians, Evan Harris and Paul Farrelly MP, had an interesting exchange, which I think was really about the difficulties of delivering the reform legislation that the coalition government is promising. In crude summary, Farrelly pointed to the challenge of ensuring access to justice and Harris replied that if the law got the principles right then access should be easier to sort out.
It certainly feels as though any attempt by parliament to get all the ducks in a row when they legislate would mean long and possibly indefinite delay. Access to justice is a maze in which the cost of lawyers’ fees and After The Event (ATE) insurance are mixed up with corporate abuse and questions about levels of damages. In principle at least all of this seems distant from the issues of freedom of speech, chilling and redress which I suspect most of us think of first in connection with libel reform, yet as Farrelly suggested there isn’t much point in getting the principles right if no ordinary citizen can afford to invoke the law.
The other big complicating factor, vividly described by Kevin Marsh of the BBC, is the question of what to do about irresponsible journalism. Far too many journalists tell far too many lies at the moment, even with our apparently harsh libel laws; if we have more sensible libel legislation, won’t those journalists exploit the opportunity and tell even more lies?
For the public as a whole, which has so little love for journalists, any legislation that appears to do them a favour without requiring better behaviour in return will probably be unattractive. Among MPs, most of whom appear to loathe and fear the tabloids in equal measure, it will surely be doubly so. Put bluntly, passing a sensible libel law would probably make it easier for the Daily Mail and the News of the World to maul and abuse MPs; why would they vote for that?
They might, if some effective form of press regulation existed, but it doesn’t. On the one hand the Press Complaints Commission refuses to be more than a low-key complaints service (and the Desmond papers have just opted out of it) while on the other the phone hacking scandal raises considerable doubt about whether even the Metropolitan Police are prepared to stand up to the tabloids.
These are very big, interlocking problems. Harris may be right, and the best approach may be to get a good, basic law in place and then see what else needs to be done afterwards, but the politics will surely make that a hard sell.
Index on Censorship celebrates Nick Clegg’s commitment to overhaul England’s much-criticised libel laws
The Libel Reform Campaign today welcomes Nick Clegg’s pledge to reform defamation laws that have made England an international “laughing stock”.
In a speech this morning at the Institute of Government in London, the deputy prime minister will reveal that the government will address all the issues raised by the Libel Reform Campaign in its report, Free Speech Is Not For Sale. A draft defamation bill to be published in the spring will clarify the existing defences of fair comment and justification. It will protect scientists, academics and journalists speaking out in the public interest with a new statutory defence.
Index on Censorship Chief Executive John Kampfner commented:
This is welcome news for the libel reform campaign. The deputy prime minister has not only acknowledged the chilling effect of our defamation laws, but taken our demands for reform fully on board. We’re delighted that that in tone and detail the draft bill will go a long way to tackling the chill on free speech emanating from English courts.
Jonathan Heawood, director of English PEN said:
We warmly welcome the deputy prime minister’s pledge to reform our rusting libel laws. PEN members have been calling for reform for over sixty years, so we are delighted that the government is making this manifesto commitment a priority. If the government follows through on Mr Clegg’s encouraging promises, the law will achieve a much more sensible balance between free expression and reputation. MPs must now ensure that the draft Bill lives up to these commitments, and that the measures are not watered down to please the rich libel tourists who currently abuse our system.
Tracey Brown of Sense About Science said:
The current libel laws are squashing free debate and expression about science, medicine, local government, corruption, biography, and consumer safety. It is squashing many more people now that we have internet publishing and individual blogs taking on these subjects. We think the government understands that now, but we know that there are many who would like to keep this system for silencing or bankrupting critics, so the deputy prime minister’s commitment to change is very important.
