Dominic Grieve: "I'm sure there is a problem"

27 Nov 09 | Uncategorized

This morning’s Today programme featured Tracey Brown of Sense About Science (a valued partner organisation in the Libel Reform Campaign), cardiologist and libel tourism victim Peter Wilmshurst, and Shadow Justice Secretary Dominic Grieve.

You can listen to it all here (07.37 for Tracey, 08.48 for Wilmshurst and Grieve).

Worryingly, Dominic Grieve doesn’t seem to think there’s anything wrong with English libel laws, besides the expense. While expense is a serious concern, it is by no means the main one, as Grieve claims. He posits that people sue in London because of the potential earnings. But this would seem to miss the point: the earnings are attractive, but it is the favourable prospect of winning that makes it worth bringing a case: it is, currently, not a huge gamble to bring a defamation case.

Addressing the specific case of Peter Wilmshurst, Grieve said it was “remarkable” that someone had “chosen” to sue the cardiologist in England. Sadly, it is not remarkable that NMT has “chosen” to bring a suit against Wilmshurst in London. What is remarkable that NMT can bring the suit here.

On libel tourism, Grieve went on to say that if a foreign-published libel is “widely reproduced” in the UK, then a person should have a right to sue: well, quite. But no one, at least not Index on Censorship, English Pen or Sense About Science, has suggested otherwise. The key word is “widely”, a question addressed in Index and PEN’s report.

With the Lib Dems committed to reform, and Labour’s Jack Straw at least making positive noises, isn’t it time the Conservatives started taking libel seriously?

The Times backs libel reform

26 Nov 09 | Uncategorized

A leader in today’s Times lends its support to Index on Censorship and English PEN‘s libel reform campaign:

Libel law reflects a balance between the right of the public to information and the right to legal redress against damage to a person’s reputation. That balance has been badly skewed by the idiosyncrasies of the English system. Index on Censorship, the free-speech pressure group, and English PEN, the writers’ organisation, recently called for reforms of libel law, including a ban on cases being heard in London unless at least 10 per cent of the offending publication’s circulation is in the UK.

That is a simple, costless and urgent reform. It would remove a deterrent to free speech and encourage a culture of inquiry. Most important, it would restore the reputation of British justice in the eyes of a sceptical world. It is about time.

The paper also carries a story today on Peter Wilmshurst, the latest scientific writer to become a victim of libel tourism. Wilmshurt’s solicitor, Mark Lewis, who spoke eloquently at the launch of the campaign, says this:

Mr Lewis said: “There is a reason not to settle, which is that this case is of wider interest for all scientists, and for the public who relies on them to assess medical research.”

Libel law, Mr Lewis said, was having “not so much a chilling effect as a killing effect” on scientific debate, by making researchers think twice before challenging findings with which they disagreed.