An Oxford University study has found that conditional fee agreements are proving a bar to UK newspapers defending libel actions.
Read more here
As previously announced, Index on Censorship and English PEN have launched a joint inquiry into libel reform. This week’s Economist carries a good round up of libel tourism issues, including this concern:
The problem is not just money. Under English libel law, a plaintiff must prove only that material is defamatory; the defendant then has to justify it, usually on grounds of truth or fairness. That places a big burden on human-rights groups that compile reports from confidential informants—usually a necessity when dealing with violent and repressive regimes. People involved in this kind of litigation in Britain say that they have evidence of instances where witnesses have been intimidated by sleuthing and snooping on behalf of the plaintiffs, who may have powerful state backers keen to uncover their opponents’ sources and methods.
Read the rest here
You may have noticed the announcement earlier this week of a joint inquiry in to libel by Index on Censorship and English PEN. The issue of the unfairness of UK defamation laws has been exercising us for some time, and we’re not the only ones.
Today saw an adjournment debate at the House of Commons on the subject of libel laws, featuring contributions from Labour, Conservative, Liberal Democrat and UKIP MPs.
The debate was initiated by Labour MP Denis MacShane, with support from Lib Dem Norman Lamb and Tory Michael Gove, (Gove is, of course, still a working journalist for the Times, and Denis MacShane is a former officer of the National Union of Journalists who regularly writes in the national media.
MacShane expressed his concern over libel tourism, which he described as ‘an international scandal which shames Britain’. He also proposed a ‘small claims court’ system for libel which would limit the amounts of fees totted up by lawyers in defamation cases, saying ‘the object [of defamation proceedings] is to gain correction and an apology, not to create a racket for lawyers’.
Norman Lamb expressed his concern over the extension of defamation laws to the Internet, where it seems possible that even a blogger providing a link to a story could find himself open to accusations of defamation.
Lib Dem Evan Harris sought to expand the debate to broader free expression issues, including the fact that England still has sedition laws — which he saw as providing a background whereby other states could justify their own sedition laws.
Tory MP (and barrister) Edward Garnier sought to defend his legal colleagues, particularly those in certain legal firms he felt had been ‘defamed’ in the session, saying: ‘We [MPs] ought to be big enough to admit that it is our fault the we do nothing [on press issues].
‘[E]ither we should get on with it, or we should stop whingeing and let judges and lawyers do their job.’
Finishing up the meeting, Bridget Prentice from the Ministry of Justice agreed to consider whether reform of the civil law is necessary, and promised a consultation paper on defamation and the Internet in the New Year, and to seek views at the same time on criminal defamation.
So it looks like the wheels may be in motion. The key now must be to a) keep the pressure on, and b) come up with positive suggestions for change. Any thoughts?
Update: The Hansard transcript of the debate can be read here
Indonesia’s rich and powerful such as Aburiza Bakrie prefer to subject media outlets to criminal proceedings rather than use the press law, writes David Jardine
(more…)