Journalist Gustavo Azócar is being prosecuted again on the charge of libelling an army officer in 2004. This comes as part of a series of actions which have been brought against him, and has provoked accusations of judicial harassment. The allegation relates to an article which Azócar wrote as a correspondent for El Universal. The story concerned purported trafficking in identity papers by the National Office for Identification and Foreigners. Azócar has repeatedly invited the soldier to use his guaranteed right of reply. He indicated that he would do so when he received permission from the defence ministry, which has still not been granted.
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.
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.
Who could possibly improve on the assessment of Justice Minister Lord McNally?
England’s libel laws are, he said, “not fit for purpose”.
McNally’s determination to drive through a bill in a crowded legislative market place marks an important step for the libel reform campaign. He made his comments at the celebration in early December of the first anniversary of the campaign, convened by Index on Censorship, English PEN and Sense About Science, and supported by many other organisations and publications, including Press Gazette.
The campaign had an immediate rallying point: the case of Simon Singh, who was being sued by the British Chiropractic Association. Singh’s battle was a perfect storm: a popular and charismatic writer being unjustly maligned for his honestly held views on a controversial alternative medical treatment.
One of the criticisms of the campaign made by those with vested interests in the status quo is that the problems with the law are concoctions drawn up by journalists and editors seeking a free pass to write what they want without fear of sanction.
The critics — based around law firms keen to maintain their profit margins – are not just wrong in the facts. They are wrong also, knowingly wrong, in suggesting time and again that our campaign is a proxy for “big media”.
We are not. The UK’s main newspapers are quite capable are looking after themselves. More fundamentally, free expression is an individual and societal right, not an industry right.
Libel has affected bloggers, scientists, doctors and charities that are unable to find the cash to fight off legal firms who deliberately string things along in order to drain the defendant of energy and time.
Less damaging than the cases that go to court are the cases that do not — people who time and again apologise and retract purely out of duress.
Inevitably there is a convergence between our aims and those of media groups.
As the industry lurches uncertainly forward on ever-dwindling resources, as investigative journalism diminishes, so democracy suffers.
If the job of the media is not to hold truth to power, then what is it for?
Our increasingly squeezed local newspapers are unlikely to be able to afford to go to the High Court, leaving editors unwilling to publish stories on local politicians and bigwigs for fear of a lengthy, expensive action.
The Reynolds Defence, held up as a boon for journalists, is realistically only applicable to papers with large newsrooms and legal departments. As one local editor pointed out at a libel reform meeting, some hard-up papers’ “legal departments” consist of an old copy of McNae’s.
As more of our work is conducted and published online, we are stuck with laws that fail to understand modern communication.
The current idea of “publication” means that every time someone clicks on a page, that page is freshly “published”.
In practice, this means the idea of a statute of limitation is out the window. Long forgotten copy can suddenly become subject of vexatious litigation.
These are just two of the issues that Index and the libel reform campaign seeks to address. We are hopeful that the draft bill promised this spring will favour a free press.
We are under no illusions, though, that the forces of resistance, the defenders of the rich and powerful, will use the pre-legislative scrutiny period to lobby hard to weaken the legislation beyond recognition.
For sure, 2010 was a great year for our cause, but 2011 will be absolutely crucial.
It’s vital the press embraces this opportunity to make our courts fairer, cheaper and firmly in favour of free expression.
John Kampfner is the chief executive of Index on Censorship
